LMS Patriot Project Updates

Yes, very depressing. I hate to knock people when they're down but reluctantly I've withdrawn my financial support for the project. No reason to doubt the people building the boiler, but apart from that there seems little of the original build that has not needed to be substantially reworked or scrapped. After leaving Llan I had hoped the loco would go to Rileys so they could do a Flying Scotsman type rescue on it. No disrespect to PRCLC but they have a bigger priority.

 

Descaling is critical, with the P2 project they have moved to "wet assembly" of components (following thorough descaling) which is takes the close fitting of parts to a new level and hopefully reduces the risk of unseen corrosion:

https://www.p2steam.com/2015/07/29/more-p2-assembly-work/



Foxy.

 

Can but whole heartedly agree Kylchap. It appears that all that could go wrong with the project has gone wrong..... Which in turn is a tragedy.

 

Sad, very sad. I am interested in the comment about the drawing for the outside cylinders being incorrect, Derby drawing number D27-10777. These cylinders were used on the original Royal Scots as well as the original Patriots. What was the date of the last update on the drawing, please?

 

I don't know how many times you can say we have turned a corner and now facing upwards and keep credibility but I'm guessing the Patriot team must be pretty close to the limit. Use it as a basis for a static exhibit at Mizens where the Footballer B17 contraption was and use the boiler for something completely different

 

I am as disappointed as any financial contributor to to the Patriot, but, 'all' the mistakes were overseen during the reign of the now removed, resigned or not reelected management and engineering group, as I see it, there is light on the horizon with the new directors elected, all the work sanctioned has been of a positive nature, albeit still correcting the previous mistakes, but with an eye fully focused on a positive outcome in the not too distant future, I wish them well and will continue with my membership although, it will now be for others to finance, as I feel that my four figure contribution is all that I am prepared to give, for now..

 

Good grief. At what point do contributors start demanding their money back?

 

This is all very, how shall I say it, unfortunate. However did the Patriot team pay any attention to the A1 Trust and how it set about building 60163 over the course of some 18 years? It would come as no great surprise if the answer was little or nothing.

The project could be rescued but it will be a slow, painful and expensive task. Does the group have either the stamina or the funds for this?

Essentially the build will have to be reduced to component part level. Everything will need full inspection with acceptance, remedial work or rejection and replacement following. At this rate of progress 3403 will be running before the Patriot turns a wheel. That is if it ever does, but perseverance could bring things around eventually but for many on this forum they will not be around to see it.

 

As someone pointed out before, "the need of ... relevant expertise is highlighted"; that seems to be the case here, too. Well, rectifying these points will probably only take time and exertion, and not cost a huge outlay (unlike the wheel cracks), so it could be a lot worse.

The action needed here is unclear, but the word "modification" makes me think likely more time+effort; "replacement" would be a very different matter.

I have to credit the team for (again) being open about their problems; people on the outside do need to think through what the actual implications (as above) of these announced issues are, and not go all 'terminal doom and gloom' whenever this sort of thing comes out. Any large project is going to have issues and setbacks (sometimes major ones, like those of the RB211, which eventually went on to be a very successful engine, to give just one example of many), and you have to work through them - and being open and honest about them when they are discovered is a key part of dealing with them.

Yes, taking the whole thing apart to properly descale the frames is a major pain, but it's not the end of the world.

Noel

 

Well the L.M.S. pat project engineering team are also making the valve chest linings machined out to be ribbed so the cylinder valve spindle heads and rods can be removed easily in future overhaul of the cylinders and valve chests but it's good the L.M.S. Pat team are doing a thorough job of leaving no stone unturned that any other components are not damaged and fit for when the loco can be eventually be rebuilt back to a wheeled set of frames possibly in 4 to 5 years Time.
Davo 56F

 

Contributors gave their money to see a Patriot built. A Patriot is still being built, albeit that the completion date has now taken a big step in the wrong direction. I can't see how anyone could ask for their money back.

 

It must be utterly gut wrenching for those who have supported this project, as well as those working members who have to almost go back to the start again,
this has to be the most unluckiest engine ever, because it seemed to be well on the way to completion , only to find the work as been bodged, to the point where only a take it back to its component parts, and this time check, and re check everything, and this time ensure its done right, is the only safe option,

 

It's bizarre. If you judge the project on its media then we had a very presentable locomotive with driving wheels, cab, frames, smokebox and a boiler being built. Only a few years ago it all looked like such a triumph. It is of regret that circumstances are as they are.

There's no bare bones about this: it's a mountain to climb for the new project team. I hope they get it done and get it done well.

 

I seem to remember that, when one of the locos that had been worked on at Llangollen was being prepared for a move elsewhere, some bits were fixed together by temporary means, not fully assembled. Could that be the explanation of the not-fitted bolts? Or was that another instance of plain bad workmanship?

 

Thing is though, no one expected just how bad the quality control of work being done on behalf of the group was, looking right, does not mean done right, and now, the group have learnt the hard way, that when you contract out work, it has to be checked at regular intervals, to check everything has been done to spec, and if not, to have a reasonable reason why, and if necessary, those bits to be redone, any engineer who wants to keep their reputation, would welcome regular inspections, and want to ensure their people are doing the job right, Had the job gone to Someone like Riley's to start with, the Patriot trust would not be in the place they are in now, but to allow the contract work to have been done to the extent, clearly shows that either those charged with ensuring the work was done right, either had no clue, what it was they were supposed to be inspecting, or were grossly inept, but at the same time, LLangollen engineering should have done the job right, they were paid to assemble the frames, and anyone who is involved with loco restoration, should know you descale new frames before you prime them,

 

How many restored locos have gotten new frames, though? And if one's never had to deal with new frames, one might not know all the steps needed - or recommended (that probably being more accurate).

Noel

 

No. 27 on the Bluebell has new frames. 9017 had 3/4 new frames at its last overhaul. Tornado and most other new builds, but Tornado is up and working, so demonstrably the team that built her have been successful in creating a large loco with new frames. So the knowledge is out there amongst the current generation of loco builders / restorers.

On your earlier analogy about how the RB211 was ultimately saved from disaster to shining success. Yes - but on the disaster front, the then team at Rolls Royce were trying to do something fundamentally novel in technology terms (composite fan blades), which the Patriot team aren't. And even though the RB211 ultimately turned into a brilliant product, it took a white knight (in the form of the Government of the day) to rescue the company financially so they could later reach that point. So it feels like an analogy based more on hope for parallels than realistic chance of such parallels actually emerging.

Maybe - harsh as it may sound - the lesson to learn from other large projects in other sectors is sometimes they just aren't successful at all. Companies write off projects all the time; of course if the sole raison d'être of an organisation is to complete that project, that's rather hard. But maybe we should be less surprised than we are if within the preservation movement, not every proposed idea follows through seamlessly to completion. Perhaps Tornado has blinded everyone to the fact that building a new loco from scratch is just bl**dy hard work. For a while it was fashionable to scoff at the plethora of Facebook new builds, but somehow they got mentally written off but everything else was on an inevitable course to completion. If so, that would be an aberration: far more likely that there will be a spectrum of projects with a few shining successes but also some that end up as a pile of scrap somewhere having never been completed.

Tom

 

The reference is to fitted bolts (interference fit bolts), not bolts that weren't fitted.

 

Tornado is hailed as a success story, and rightly so. However, it runs in my mind that it didn't get off to a good start, especially with the frame assembly. I don't know for certain but I'm fairly sure that what I was told was fact. There were other mistakes along the way, as well, now largely forgotten, but they were all successfully overcome.