Tornado

Oh no, take it, just not on a fixed fee... cost plus for preference and extensions of time for every thing out of spec...

 

If I remember correctly, wernt the horn guides out of true, and Rileys had to re do much of the chassis' work, alignment

 

Not exactly. The overhaul commenced in early 2006 and he inherited the situation when he took over the NRM in 2010. He may well have commissioned the report into the mess that the overhaul was in by then but you cannot blame him for leading it into that mess. Blame him for what he is responsible for, if you will, but the Flying Scotsman debacle was not of his doing.

Peter

 

You’re doing it wrong….

 

Can somebody tell me what the problem is with Tornado as I believe the overhaul was done by locomotive services at Loughborough.

 

Not a very high bar, though.
Pat

 

Turning the new re-tyred wheels down to accommodate a non conforming boiler/firebox ? Locomotive Services are NOT responsible for this surely ?

 

Agree...but I still wouldn't take it on.

 

It works best if their identical twin sisters, ok, ok, i will take myself off to the naughty step and think about my actions, On second thoughts, maybe not

 

Blue Peter had it tyres turned after one run ,as for the boiler it’s been passed of by a professional boiler inspector.

 

How much was turned off them and why
Re the boiler, the job of the boiler inspector is to confirm it's good enough as a pressure vessel, not how it got there.
And why are they using this boiler at all? what happened to the brand new ones that should have been built?

 

There's a big difference between a quick skim of the tyres because the profile wasn't right, and removing half of the material because the measurements somewhere aren't right.

 

It’s the same boiler that it as carried from new the boiler inspector has to be happy with any repairs carried out not just the fact it passes a pressure test.

 

The inspection is a bit like an MOT, the inspector will only be concerned that its right, at the time of testing, They might have expressed concerns, but if its watertight, and steam tight, and meets the regulations, then that everything works as it should in the stage 2 inspection, As long as its safe to use, Any problems further down the line, will be decided by the operators own examiner, along with the annual inspection, part of the firebox may be out of true, but as long as it's not breaking stays, or is cracking, and leaks are appearing, it can still be said to be fit for use.

 

And it's not his job to enquire why the trust ordered 3 new boilers, none of which have shown up yet, nor why the repairs took so long, nor why it's changed configuration of stays
(In the latter case, I would imagine he would enquire as to the mechanical causes of the change, but not the decisions that lead to that change being necessary.

 

3 new boilers, enlighten us as to what they are going to be used on????

From the horses mouth, 1 used is in 60163 now, another is built, and ready, another is a kit in Germany.

So where is the other one for, asking for a friend???

 

Yes, the last order was for two new modified boilers, one for Tornado’s overhaul, the other for the P2. Three if you include Tornado’s original I suppose.

 

I'm afraid that it's not like an MOT in that respect. Unlike an MOT, where the period is laid down in law, there is no such requirement with a pressure vessel. When he examines the boiler, the inspector has to make a judgement call that it will still be in a satisfactory condition after a period of time. That is why the paperwork specifies a point in time after which it cannot be used without a further examination. Custom and practice means it is usually taken as 14 months but it doesn't have to be; I've known certificates issued for less than this, usually to allow operation for a short period of time to get the user to a point where it can be taken out of service without creating operational problems but the inspector must be satisfied that it will not cause danger. If it was simply OK on the day like an MOT, then there would be no reason for doing that. Yes, the operator is responsible for ensuring that it remains safe to operate and that is the same with a car or, indeed, anything else.

 

I think you meant two, as others have pointed out; one for 2007, one as a working spare to those fitted to 2007 and 60163.

 

From what I have been told the repairs to the firebox carried out increased the length of the boiler or firebox slightly, and that was enough to reduce the clearance to the rear drivers. That, of course opens a new can of worms as to who authorised said repairs, and why they didn't check whether it would affect clearances. I can't answer that, but perhaps others can? Equally, of course, I might be recounting inaccurate hearsay, if I am then equally someone will correct me!