Tornado

Tom

The limit of 7 years between boiler internal inspections for mainline steam locomotives was dropped in 2018.

 

Yes, they are the ones from Riviera trains, had forgotten about them. So yes, theoretically Tornado could run with them in lieu of a 47, no different to a railtour run with a non ETS fitted diesel.

 

What is the inspection regulations in force now then, for main line steam, is it an anual inspection, every year, and a mandatory boiler out of the frames tubes out inspection every ten years , same as on preserved railways?

 

The issue here is not the choices when presented with the deck, but the hands played that led to that deck being what's on offer in the first place.

 

I would imagine that this is a significant factor in deciding to go with West Coast rather than rekindle the original plan with DB, that involved using SRPS stock.

 

Not the last time I looked at the standard? You don’t have to have the boiler out the frames at 7 years which means you can do an internal inspection and get an extension to the limit of the boiler insurance, but I thought there was still a tubes out inspection required at 7.

 

RIS 2003 states 7 years but, if the circumstances are right an independent certification body can carry out an assessment with a view to extending this to 10 years, max.

 

On stock, I completely agree. However, I was looking more at the engineering and the multi year delay in getting Tornado back running, which I’d inferred was the reason for doing a deal.

 

Does the standard still require that such an assessment is carried out at 5 years? It used to operate such that if you wanted 10yrs between overhauls you had to carry out the intermediate inspection before the 5 years which means mark and were then allowed a maximum of 5 years from that assessment (thus making 10)? And is it still the case that in practice the independent inspectors would require at least the small tubes out and possibly outer lagging in key places off?

 

This would be the engine that spread it's middle gear over the ECML... and has spent two years in a 6-month overhaul, and been apparently ready for traffic and withdrawn at no notice multiple times over the last year?

The idea that it is somehow guaranteed not to fail after it's track record to date is... optimistic.

 

Really?
So who ordered the boiler then?
Who's been in charge of maintenance?
Who made, and then broke lots of planned railtour agreements?

 

Who mentioned a guarantee? It is getting one test run with a light load, then thorough inspection, then another test run with a whole train. Any of those steps could reveal a problem that needs to be dealt with. After all that, it could still fail during regular main line operation, as can any other locomotive, but by then the probability should be acceptably low.

Edit: corrected a typo.

 

Those do appear to have been bad decisions by the Trust. If none of that had happened Tornado might have been ready to resume main line work much sooner. But would any other TOC and provider of coaches have been available?

 

Not sure anyone has said it's guaranteed not to fail, it is currently under test. My point is it has cleared the first hurdles of the mainline certification procedure and will be on the mainline today - it would not have done that if the loco was in the condition that some would have us believe it is in.
Blue Peter and Duke of Gloucester have also had a number of false starts and/or requirements for adjustments - maybe restoring a large Pacific locomotive to mainline standard isn't actually that straightforward. Maybe the testing and commissioning procedure is there for a reason.
I think some on here would applaud if it does fail today or in the next few weeks just so they can say 'I told you so' & have something else to beat the trust with. Well that's not why I got into steam preservation or why I continue to contribute to the A1st. I do that because I want to see these locos run still & I want to see an A1 & P2 on the mainline. Today Tornado will run on the mainline, for me that's a cause for celebration. There have been a number of odd decisions in relation to the locomotive recently, starting with believing an overhaul could be done in 6 months - but we are today a step closer to the loco being back where it belongs.

 

Possibly not. However, I note that this is an agreement struck now, and not as the overhaul came to its planned conclusion. That suggests that the need for an agreement was driven less by stock than overhaul issues - hence mine and others focus on Trust governance.

Even if with a dose of “about time”, I do agree with @acorb on one thing though - it is good to see Tornado running again.

 

I just hope that it can manage to get a couple of good consistent years of running under it's belt again to restore some faith with folk who have previously donated.

Tornado has done marvellous things for the movement as a whole, and fingers crossed it can continue to do so once all is sorted with the snagging from the current overhaul.

Unfortunately it's repeated non-appearances at various events and venues will no doubt have frustrated and disappointed many.

I'm in agreement that those in positions of influence & responsibility at the trust need to be looking very hard at the process that has lead to now- and also looking at how to re-engage with their followers, otherwise they risk killing off a massive chunk of the funding they have historically accessed.

Glad to see that it now has an agreement in place for running on the mainline.

Chris

 

So we agree that FTR is no guarantee of running without problems, so we are back to trusting the Trust's mechanical track record, which I would say is lower than other comparable engines (all of which have 40 more years of use on them).

 

"Blue Peter .......... also had a number of false starts"

That has to be the mother of all false starts!