Tornado

When I had temerity to query this decision at a convention a few years back, suggesting that would give us the worst of both worlds, ie a bodged up boiler for Tornado and a delayed boiler for the P2, I was told “no, this would save time on the overhaul and the P2 would be unaffected as the manufacturer had different gangs for repairs and new boiler construction”. I raised an eyebrow but the room accepted this, as all they did all the other justifications given for what was already looking like a shambles.

As a footnote, on the bus transfer to DLW, I was sat at the front so unrecognisable to those further back, two of whom started grumbling loudly about “those few people who insist on asking questions snd prolonging the meeting when most of us just want to go and see the loco”. This is indicative of the mindset of the majority of the supporters and why it will be so difficult to dislodge the imposters.

 

Perhaps the cat can solve Tornado’s problems.
(Photo by Russell Newman).

 

Every little helps, I guess.

 

The decision to order two new boilers was well founded at the time. The unit cost would be less; in future they would be able to turn round loco overhauls more quickly since a refurbished boiler would always be waiting. This was during a time when the Trust had reasonable expectations that, for some of the time, both locos could be operational and earning revenue. Since then, circumstances have changed in many ways. If they no longer have realistic expectations of operating two locos during the same season, the requirement for two new boilers diminishes. Reducing the order to one boiler and paying penalty fees for the cancelled one could be seen as necessary if finances are really tight, especially if overhauling Tornado's existing boiler was seen as comparatively low cost - which, of course, it has not been.

 

It has been announced that the visit of Tornado to the NVR has been postponed until October. The boiler has been steamed up to full working pressure but the actual boiler inspection has not yet taken place, it is imminent though. Then there will be a short running in on the GCR up to 60mph.

 

This IMHO, should have been earmarked as soon as the engine started it's first ticket, that by the ten year mark, a new firebox, of copper inner construction should have been made, and the new firebox fitted during the overhaul, this would have given the trust 10 years to fund raise for a new, complete firebox , and also for the boiler for 2009 to be constructed about the same time, Ideally with 2009 being completed about the same time as 60163 came out of ticket, so that the trust had a replacement ready to go, that would have enabled tornado's overhaul to have been done at a more organised pace, with a possible return to steam at about the 7-8 year mark, to give a period of testing and running in. But I guess that the powers that be didn't see no further than their own reflected glory.

 

Comments like this seem utterly unnecessary to me. People are allowed to make decisions that you wouldn’t, and they’re allowed to make mistakes. Circumstances also change, and render previously sound decisions irrelevant or incorrect.

Could all of this have been managed better? No doubt. But I also doubt that there’s anything to suggest that people aren’t carrying out their roles to the best of their ability and with good intent. Unless you know better?

Besides, what is this ‘glory’ you speak of? The opportunity to be pilloried on social media? I’m not sure there’s glory to be had by individuals in this business no matter how glorious Tornado itself is.

Simon

 

Easy to make all sorts of statements in hindsight, but you couldn't just fit a new copper inner firebox into the existing steel wrapper, since the whole staying pattern would need redesigning. So in effect, changing from steel to copper would be tantamount to a new boiler - not much other than the barrel, front tube plate, dome and some internal fittings etc could be used from the old one. It is a non-trivial task.

Boiler repairs on a big pacific are always going to be expensive - it's an inherently related to their size. If you think of an operation such as replacing a stay, it has a basically fixed cost in materials and labour. But dealing with a boiler with 2000+ stays is going to be more expensive than dealing with a small tank engine with a few hundred - just by the magic of multiplication of a fixed cost * a bigger number! That's before you get into the logistics of actually handling such a large piece of metal.

Looking from outside, and going largely only on what I read online, my sense is that there have probably been two mis-steps along the way: one in project management, one in strategy.

The project management one was to base a plan around fitting a new boiler when the loco needed overhaul, creating a pool - and then to change that plan to repairing the old one. The initial plan had a lot of sense. Equally, repairing the existing may have been a sound alternative decision. But switching seems to have resulted in the worst of both worlds from both a cost and timescale point of view.

The other - strategic - point was fitting ETRMS. That must always have carried a high technical risk (= risk of delays and cost over runs). Were I a mainline loco owner and I saw that requirement on the horizon, I'd be quite happy for anyone else to go first and follow on when the inevitable complexities had been worked through at someone else's expense. I'd be quite happy to be the second loco owner to fit the system ...

But that's all hindsight: I wasn't in the board room faced with all the relevant background info and required to make a decision.

Tom

 

I think most of the issues can be traced back to changes at board level and the personalities of those involved.

 

The Author, Neville Shute, in his autobiography 'Sliderule' wrote that in business there are two types of people. They are the 'starters' and the 'runners', and are rarely combined in any one person. In the case of 'Tornado' they may well have had good 'starters', but the 'runners' have clearly been woefully lacking in performance.

 

The reason given at the time was that the construction of the two new boilers had been delayed by Covid, so overhauling the existing boiler was the quickest course of action. This was in 2022.

https://www.a1steam.com/tornado/news/tornado-details/an-update-on-the-progress-of-the-new-boilers

Why did they want homologation/certification in Germany/Europe? Did they have grandiose plans to run in Europe? If you have a boiler built at Meiningen, it will be all-steel as they are not certified for rivetting, on boilers at least. Judging by the cost of the Patriot boiler built by HBSS and that quoted for 4709, a boiler for 60163 with a copper firebox would have cost little more than those from Meiningen and that was after allowing for a £200k discount for ordering two.

 

I think the trust was started well under its first chairman and run well by its second. Things seem to have gone drastically downhill since 2017.

 

I'd argue that it's a damned sight harder to run things, compared to starting them, once the initial excitement of creation has run its course and you move into the dull plod of predictable ongoing, neverending support.

Simon

 

In preparation for Tornado's approved 90 mph run(s), it was certainly appropriate to go somewhat faster than that on the trial run. How fast would have been enough? How fast was it originally envisaged that Tornado would go for better compatibility with other trains on the network? How fast did Bittern go on its trial run on the GWML before its public 90 mph runs?

 

The A1SLT was run successfully until 2017 when its leadership changes started.

 

How is your drum not broken yet? You have banged the same one for comment after comment!

We all fully understand that you have a less than satisfactory feeling with the current leadership, but I think if you could just repeat 1 or 100 times more for us all to be absolutely sure of the fact.

 

You could always fill in the Ignore page.

 

I believe it is normal to be trialled at max speed plus 10% .....so 90 plus 9 mph. Of course that is so close to the symbolic "ton" that they went that little bit faster. However the Ebor Flyer was after an intermediate overhaul when new rings etc were fitted and shortly after it had been "run in".