Tornado

Several years passed between the construction of Tornado's original boiler and the order for the new ones. I think A1SLT have acknowledged - though I can't find where - that skills of the current management in Germany and their engineering standards do not match up with earlier times. I believe that the German certification body, TUV, has been brought in to try to improve standards.

 

No, but at least it'd be able to run out of the Cross...

 

After the completion of the turntable at Ferryhill the A1 trust made the Aberdonian their core of easy to do repeat summer operations. Frustratingly only in 2019 & 2021 have things gone to plan with Tornado on these operations. Unlike last year when a couple of trains went ahead despite Tornado not being available I can’t see that being the case this year due to matters already discussed at length. This overhaul reminds me of Flying Scotsman’s restoration in the late 2000s/early 2010s albeit on a smaller scale. I must say that it is disappointing that steam in Scotland outside the Jacobite faces another lost summer thanks to the delays in this overhaul. Even without this the events with West Coast would cause problems anyway. I feel very sorry for SRPS who have lost out in considerable income as a result of the stock hire fees. Anyway here’s hoping Tornado is back in action soon doing what it does best which is running on the mainline.

 

I’m pretty sure the declared overhaul timescale was 6 months, and this included a new boiler, the fitment of ETMS and new tyres. Tour tickets were being sold for later that summer (I have chapter and verse if anyone wants more detail).

 

That sounds wildly optimistic to me. Which makes me wonder - is the issue that the overhaul has been slower than it should have been, or that it has taken what is reasonable (pace @W.Williams) but they announced an unrealistic timetable which they have then inevitably failed to achieve?

6 months to achieve a heavy general of a pacific including boiler overhaul, new tyres and fit a novel system would have been not hugely longer than would have been expected at a main works overhaul in grouping days.

Tom

 

The initial plan, as I understand it, didn't include a boiler overhaul - there was supposed to be a new replacement boiler ready and waiting to drop into the overhauled frames. On that basis a well organised six month bottom end overhaul does not seem unduely optimistic but as we know things didn't quite work out like that. Then getting carried away with a vanity project like ERTMS (a white elephant for steam if ever there was one) and is it any wonder that the plot seems to be completely lost.

I'm not involved with it in any way so I'm not in a position to criticise but it is sad to see what was once a dynamic organisation in such disarray.

Peter

 

My understanding of the ERTMS project (I have a work colleague who has some involvement in it) is that NR are funding it as a way of proving the concept with heritage locos (steam and diesel). In which case, any main line loco owner offered the chance to get the kit fitted at someone else’s expense would be mad to turn it down. At some point in future every main line loco owner is going to have to decide whether to fit this kit or give up.

 

If you want to run main line steam in the future, your locomotive will have to have ERTMS so it's hardly a "vanity project".

 

Wasn't it also planned that Tornado would be allowed to operate at 90mph, and that was one of the reasons why she was to be the first engine so fitted, so that the kit could be tested above the 75-mph top limit normally imposed on steam,

 

I'm not so sure - I think I'd be quite happy to see someone else debug the system first.

Even if NR are paying for the equipment and fitting, I doubt they are paying for the additional time needed. For a loco that needs to be out on the mainline to be earning any money, there is a significant cost of delay - every month out of action is a month where you have all your organisational overheads but no income coming in. Add to that the risk that equipment doesn't work well from the off - a few failures of FTRs caused by non-functioning electronic equipment could earn you a reputation for unreliability for reasons that may well out of your control.

If ERTMS is going to become a requirement for mainline locos in the future, I think I'd be angling to be second or third in line for fitment - not first! Even if that meant I had to fund the installation myself.

Tom

 

I think this is probably one of those damned if you do, damned if you don't scenarios. Someone has to be first, you balance that risk against the substantial investment someone else is making on your behalf. As first in line, you're naturally going to be the Guinea pig while it's debugged. An additional benefit could/would be that while it is in the 'debugging' phase, they will still have NR's support. If you're fitting the kit after the fact, you're more likely to be on your own when it goes wrong.

The alternative everyone else will face is in X years time, having to find another £100,000 to fund a proven kit of parts. My guess is people will moan just as much when those begging letters start to go out, while in the background Tornado can (in theory) carry on slogging up and down the ERTMS mainline as one in a decreasing pool of mainline ready locos.

 

I wonder if there are any common factors between the two overhauls….

 

My basic point is one of, quelle surprise. It really shouldnt be a shock to anyone in this space that its taken longer.

Does 6 months have any precedent in the modern era of steam?
Grouping workshops employed hundreds of thousands of skilled staff, how many do we have in the heritage industry today?

There is only one outfit I can think of that can even get close to 6 months for anything approaching a heavy general, and they were not in charge of Tornado.

The two boilers idea is actually a very prudent move. Making two is not double the effort, or cost, of making one.

Speculative, but id wager its more like an additional 60-75% due to duplication of parts, economy of scale in material purchase, and availability of skilled staff, who you already have by lieu of making the first one.

Its a shame the new boiler isnt ready to go, as then the 6 month mark might have been more achievable.

I hope it does finish soon, as its alwasy great to see visitors at 61B.

 

Having 'been there' on several occasions I don't suppose that the A1SLT are any happier with the situation than the rest of us are, It's not like the donations and pledges are being spent in the pub, there are many factors in play that 'No-One' has any control over. For example IIRC the boiler, when originally constructed, had to be welded to British standards, which even pre Brexit were different to those of Europe, the easy way out was to employ British welders but We can't even find them over here now, this led to the A1SLT having to provide their own CE standard, the British loading guage and required grate area led to problems with the welded stays, building two boilers is hardly a production run, so other mainland European work is bound to take precedence, these all add to the problems over which the A1SLT have no jurisdiction over, but they are to whom the problems come back, so personally I Think that It's time that We cut the A1SLT a bit of slack, I appreciate the views of those Who no longer wish to donate, that is, as It always has been their right. Personally I trust that Tornado will eventually be back and lessons will be learned, but in all honesty, It's not the first project to get into difficulties and I've no doubt that It will not be the last. Please be patient.

 

Speaking of being patient, thanks to the current state of NP it’s almost impossible to keep a coherent discussion going, but having finally managed to break back in, I’ll return to the latest issue of the failed stays in the overhauled boiler and the struggle to find a suitable coded welder.

Just how thorough was the boiler overhaul I wonder?

IF these stays are new, a) then they shouldn’t be cracking, b) how many more might follow suit (possible material issue?), and c) surely then it’s a warranty issue so Germany should be supplying a welder in short order?

Alternatively (and I suggest more probable), is that a significant number of stays weren’t replaced to save time or money or both, and therefore the boiler isn’t, despite the Trust’s claim at time the decision was made to repair, of equivalent quality to a new one.

In either case going forward, even after this latest failure is rectified, we are now saddled with a boiler of suspect reliability. Hopefully it will hang together long enough for the first of the long awaited new boilers to ride to the rescue.

 

As I understand it the stay issue was more or less 'Predicted' by Meiningem at the design stage, probably due to the length of the stays and the UK requirement for a weld prep, this led to the requirement for the A1SLT to provide their own CE thus covering Meiningem's @rse.

Now regardless of who or where carries out the work NO repaired boiler will be of 'As new' condition, so obviously one of the new boilers would be better, but It's hardly the A1SLT's fault that the boiler that they are not making is not finished, It is out of their hands although they are doing what they can to rebuild 'Tornado'.

If nothing else, this episode is confirming what I posted some time ago on the 47xx thread about it being ultimately cheaper to build a new boiler than to restore an old one (particularly in the case of the 47xx since the 'donor' boiler would be incorrect) the same posters who shouted Me down then are now calling for a new boiler for Tornado.

 

I have no special interest in the loco (being an LNER Pacific) but without knowing the ins and outs of what folks who know far more than me have posted here I personally find that people take dates far too literally, and organisations are far too optimistic with their announcements.
I say this not just about railway preservation but projects in general. You only have to look at projects generally, from vast things like HS2, Crossrail, B787, A350, Berlin Airport, to small projects, a hell of a lot which were never completed on time, long before Covid and a European War impacted global supply chains.
I spent my working life continually managing projects, large and small that were optimistic to downright stupid in their predicted timeframes. I cannot remember too many that were actually completed on time or without any serious intervention.
Now at a major airline we were not short of Procurement, Project Management or Engineering resource, and by the terms of railway preservation, not short of suppliers too. The projects may have been bigger than the A1, but the resource was as well, yet we could not achieve dates most of the time.
I can understand why the A1 folks keep wanting to push encouraging news, especially as your own source of funds is from supporters. But in the same way no one at my company wanted to tell the "grown ups" very bad news about project delays, I can understand why this has gone the same way.
In my view the biggest mistake was/is to keep promising things that they must know are at best unlikely or at worst totally achievable.

 

There is an old adage in sales, under promise and over deliver, the A1 Trust have done the opposite and now reap the criticism. In fact it's even worse than that, they keep promising and then feeding a bit more bad news. We now know they need some more welding including the gauge frames, why? No explanation given.