Tornado

I think their problems come down to poor leadership and governance which has led to over promising, under delivering, lack of transparency & communications and taking their covenantors & volunteers for fools.

 

Even Newton ,the smart guy ,was fooled out of money by something called SouthSea Company.

 

Finish building the P2, then stop. If someone else wants to build the V4, let them.

And to think that years ago, a colleague of mine said he had no desire to fund Mark Allatt's bid for world domination...

 

Hopefully I’ll get time later to catch up with all the recent posts above. In the meantime, in the immortal words of Columbo … “err just one more thing ……”


Two new live steam injectors have been fitted during the overhaul - no explanation or justification has been published, although I did hear vague mutterings about reliability and there being a ‘nice pair of live steam units sitting on someone’s shelf’ (I knew about these new A1 injectors way back in June 2022 whilst the loco was still being dismantled at LMS).


Now at the very same time the Trust launched a fundraising club for a new Exhaust Steam Injector (ESI) for the P2. So why fit an ESI to the P2 if it’s so unreliable? But if you do still intend to, then why not rebuild the one removed from the A1 with new internals thereby reusing the very expensive cast brass body?


As an aside, the P2 ESI injector club featured a rather uninspiring photo of a live steam unit, laying on a pallet – not great when you’re trying to get folk to part with large sums of cash. I had to bring this to the Trust’s attention whereupon it was replaced with an pic of an actual ESI.


And now the latest I’m hearing is that more re-work is required to replace all the recently installed pipework and hoses from the tender to the new injectors, due to the newly fitted items being too small in bore and not flexible enough ….


Sorry to be the bearer of yet more gloom …..

 

As the design stage of this 1st boiler started some 20 or more years ago the responsibility has to fall on the original 'top brass', surely? Can it be that they realised that this boiler was turning out to be a disaster thus resulting in the resignations in recent years? Isn't it more a case of the recent incumbents inheriting the situation.

 

That was the point of my question about David Elliott. However, the current leadership have to retain ownership of the situation, and it is that performance that is in question

 

But it's done @ 130k miles so surely the snags were sorted...just a comment not a criticism...

 

Interesting responses chaps.

In relation to the two new boilers, the intention was to correct the deficiencies of the original, particularly in relation to increasing the water space dimensions between the inner and outer boxes. This would reduce the grate area slightly but this wasn’t seen as a significant issue as the loco steams more than adequately you might say.

Once the new boilers were delivered the original was to be returned to Germany to be rebuilt to the new spec. This meant that there would then be three identical boilers with common grate components etc. all eminently sensible in my view.

Why on earth the Trust chose to deviate from this plan is quite beyond me.

To me, the root cause of all this lies in a lack of supervision and control over their contractors. For major items such as the boilers, there needs to be an agreed inspection schedule, with the construction held at key stages until signed off by the Trust (or its appointed inspector if no competent in-house person). This couldn’t have been in place otherwise how did the boiler have tubes fitted without the necessary internal inspection being carried out. Also the deformations would have been picked up and action agreed, so it would never have reached these shores uncorrected.

The same goes for certain other components I’m sure.

 

Personally at this rate I can't see Tornado going mainline this year. Let it be used on heritage lines this year (if boiler 1 doesn't give up the ghost again) and replace it with boiler 2 of it passes all the rigorous tests. Get Rileys or Leaky Finders to construct boiler 3 and/or completely overhaul boiler 1.

Finish the P2 but not to be rushed under any circumstances and completely drop the V4

 

Meanwhile all this much vaunted and highly expensive ERTMS kit sits unused on the loco and will probably be obsolete by the time there is any chance of testing it. It all seems to have gone 'orribly wrong for what ever reason.

Peter

 

I’ve lost count of just how many NR test slots they’ve failed to show up for.

NR can’t be too impressed I imagine.

 

Can I humbly summarise ?.. total and utter DLW's bad management. Change is desperately needed....

 

ETCS is being installed and commissioned on the East Coast Main Line as we write: there have been full line closures between Peterborough and Kings Cross for a couple of weekends now - it's known as the East Coast Digital Programme.

As I understand it, ETCS is not the same as ERTMS but we do have signalling experts on this forum to correct me if I'm wrong.

 

Indeed - as I said earlier, let someone else build a V4; it'd be ideally suited to the Harry Potter Specials on the West Highland Line.

 

To me that’s just semantics - it’s whatever you need to operate on the southern end of the ECML, whatever the nomenclature. The Trust said they’d fit it in the 6 month overhaul following successful trails with a temporary installation at the GCR in winter 2021. Yet again the planning, design and implementation were woeful and completion to a stage where the loco can venture back onto the network has only just been reached. Operating with in-cab signalling is still subject to NR testing and acceptance.

 

FAQ here: https://transport.ec.europa.eu/transport-modes/rail/ertms/faq-ertms_en

I actually thought that it was tested on the Hertford Loop as well as the Cambrian Coast.

ETA: already in use on the Hertford Loop in places.
https://www.railmagazine.com/news/2...n-great-northern-trains-heading-into-moorgate

 

IMHO there’s nothing wrong with welded stays. However, it isn’t just as simple as that. You can have welded stays in clearance holes or you can have them in tight holes. Then you can have them with J prep welds or you can have them with fillet welds. Each variation has advantages and disadvantages. A clearance hole essentially lengthens the flexible length of the stay. However, the clearance soon fills up with corrosion and that effectively shortens the flexible length. A fillet weld also increases the effective length and has the advantage over the J prep welds of being easily removable when changing but burns away on the fire side so requires more frequent changing. There are advantages and disadvantages to all these variations and you take your choice.

 

"IMHO there’s nothing wrong with welded stays".....leaving aside that the welds are prone to cracking due to cyclic stresses!