LMS Patriot Project Updates

Do they need to totally disassemble the frames though? can't they drill through the rivets on say one stretcher, remove the stretcher, needle gun the frames in that segment clean back both faces, re fit the stretcher, primer, the bare metal, and cleaning back as they go along, doing it a segment at a time, needle gunning the frames as they go, the insides first, removing each part as they work along, rectifying any issues , possibly setting up the horn guides etc properly at the same time.

 

Thats not what I was told and I'm fairly sure what I was told was fact....

 

There's an argument, though, that if you are not comfortable one aspect of the work has been properly carried out, that it could make more sense to check everything else in detail at this stage rather than be bitten later.

 

I did realise that. I wondered whether parts had been tacked together with ordinary bolts just to hold them in place temporarily.

 

Probably quicker to dismantle, shot blast, paint and then reassemble rather than trying to keep everything aligned while dismantling/painting individual parts.

 

I was one of the covenantors at the time. This guy, I think his name was Vince Dunnington, or something similar who was involved with the project and had worked on building the original A1s at either Darlington or Doncaster, he wrote this report saying that the new frames for Tornado had lots of defects and weren't to the required standard. A further letter was then circulated to all the contributors by some other guy who had been involved in a voluntary capacity basically saying the project was in jeopardy and needed to be rescued by its supporters (because of this report).

In hindsight it is clear that both were over dramatized. The A1 trust looked at all the issues highlighted and put them right and clearly they weren't anywhere near as major as was first implied, just a few things that needed correcting, but by then the doubts caused had already made me cancel my small monthly contribution. I am happy to see it went on to be a huge success.

 

Agreed, as I remember he had highlighted several supposed issues that when Blue Peter was looked over as an example of how it was done originally it was found that things on the frame construction of Blue Peter were not as he suggested they should be!

 

I remember attending meetings surrounding Tornado's alleged non conformances. It seemed to be a devastating setback at the time but,to their credit,the A1 Trust tackled the problems and rectified them. Since then,with one unfortunate exception,the locomotive has been an outstanding success.
This article gives more detail.
https://www.thenorthernecho.co.uk/news/7091815.inquiry-delays-tornado-project/

 

I remember this well. My late grandfather thought that it could have been handled much better by those criticising the components that were found to be "out of kilter" as he put it. This did lead, in my view, to improving the A1 Trust's internal procedures and compliance/inspection, but it could have been handled differently and not created more heat than light.

I think the accusation that Tornado would be "unsafe" was unfair at the time, and in hindsight looks unfair now too. It made for a better locomotive, of course, and a better organisation, and maybe we should be grateful for that: but the manner in which the complaints were carried out didn't sit right with me.

Maybe that's part of railway preservation we need to work on: perhaps an independent panel where such things can be done with two aggrieved parties or purely to improve our standards of work where questions need to be asked. Something akin to a preservation Ombudsman, perhaps.

I've always felt "jaw jaw" was better than "war war" when it comes to us all coming together to make railway preservation better. In terms of new builds, they sit outside of "preservation" and are more "recreation" - but shouldn't be excluded on those grounds.

In short, there must be a better way of asking engineering questions and pushing standards up in our industry?

 

Is this the same Mr Bottomley that owns 92207?

 

I wonder how much of the problems in the Patriot were caused by the rush for the 2018 WW1 centenary.

Sorting the frames will be a horrible job. Although it will provide information as to how driven bolts behave.

 

Before they were scrapped the 1st Clan frames had a healthy coating of Mill scale. The replacement set didnt seem to have this so perhaps this had already been removed before delivery.
The assembly policy there seems to be bare metal to bare metal with the use, where necessary, of an abrasive disc...

 

My own view on this, in the last couple of instances, has been to be supportive given that there is a clear demonstration of transparency by the engineering team.

That hasn't changed. These are all engineering issues, and they are all resolved as a matter of routine in the railway preservation industry. In truth, all of this has all be done before.

I'm more optimistic than ever. Now we are down to bare frames there really is not much left to be discovered.

At some point, the only way is up.

 

Very True, once you reach the bottom, there is only one way you can go, that's up, If It means starting the reassembly from scratch so be it, at least, nothing more can go wrong, at each stage, if every stage is checked, double checked and done correctly, So many have been the errors that have come to light, that it might turn out to be a blessing in disguise, because then, if you know for sure its done right, you shouldn't need to re do it later, i dread to think what would have happened had these defects not been found out and the engine failed on the big railway, and an inspection found a catalogue of mistakes, might it have made NR consider banning steam completely, or at least insisting engines had an provable overhaul record? meaning overhauls becoming even more stricter, with full documentation at every stage .

 

True. Certainly the current Clan team have wrought wonders ..... and a Patriot has one less axle to worry about!

It seems to me that the new team's commendably open approach is thoroughly deserving of confidence. OK, so we've seen a litany of horrors, which the build could of course have done without, but perhaps it would lift spirits somewhat to list the very many fully serviceable components which the newly 're-engineered' Unknown Warrior project has to hand?

 

An engineering update including the issues that have been found has been posted on the Patriot Project website. Good luck to the project in sorting these issues out.
https://www.lms-patriot.org.uk/engineering/2021-09-16/engineering-update-august-2021

 

An informative but painful read. I sincerely hope that these difficulties and setbacks can be overcome and that the income stream will continue, allowing project completion.

 

Glad to see that they are putting some detail of what's going right as well as all the (important as it is) things going wrong.

 

Because the original x-ray examination of the driving wheel castings is said to have not been of sufficient clarity, could the foundry be said to be at fault ? if so lets hope they accept responsibility and offer to recast a complete set of driving wheels for the company ,at their own expense does that pattern still exist that was used?

 

It all depends on the terms of the contract between the parties concerned, surely?