Tornado

It is not easy to imagine how (repair of/welding on) barrel or firebox wrapper can make boiler shorter.

A more likely happening:
A picture from 2011 shows no flexible stays in problem zone and latest pictures from Sheff shows nothing but flexible stay domes in same area
https://media.gettyimages.com/id/80...=UgdXmDrHo-N6OUV1937wBWM1JexO3dQ8ZhZ2FcZ7nG0=

 

I very much doubt it. Anyone who does know the full story is highly unlikely to post on here, beit to comfirm or deny "inaccurate hearsay". So the lack of denial does not mean that the supposition is likely to be true. It remains in all probability just inaccurate hearsay.

Peter

 

Sorry, yes 2 new ones in toto (one on, one on the P2 and one in the wash)
But the questions remain as to why boiler #1 is still on the engine. And why boilers are coming back as kit of parts. Etc

 

Is it possible that there has been a dispute with the manufacturer settle out of court, but the settlement includes agreement to remain silent?

 

Please explain why the original boiler should not be on the engine and who says the other boilers are coming back as a kit of parts?.

Test run next week?.

 

Becuase the much-vaunted plan was to buy two new boilers to allow the old one to be refurbished off the engine.
Becuase the old one is sufficiently out of true to require destructive alterations to the machine to try to make it fit (so far tyres and ashpan)?
So the trust have spent a large quantity of money with no result other than tornado's return being delayed. How does that seem a good idea to you?

 

Certainly possible, but if they agreed to one which didn't allow for a statement that updates members that's either careless of the need to keep members updated or poor legal work on their part.

 

I think you will find that the original boiler is still on the loco because, at the time, it required less time to get to a working condition than the second boiler. There's no current requirement for the third boiler and there's no point in finishing it until the design has been optimised.

 

You are getting warm....

 

I believe, It might have been Sheff but someone did post that the firm had not been paid, due to the contract not having been delivered as promised, which could certainly be viewed as my learned friends being involved,
but the past is just that, past, I hope that Tornado, when it does appear, is reliable and settles down, and that the A1 trust, learn from what's gone wrong, and reach out to those who supported the building, and future operation of Tornado, IMHO, what's needed is to come clean, about why certain decisions were made, and assurances that they won't happen again, This has to be backed up by actions, such as the chair, accepting responsibility , and stepping down, and a full audit for what went wrong, why it went wrong, and steps to ensure it does not happen again, the first step has to be the appointment of a suitably experienced, and respected person to oversee the operation of Tornado, and a project engineer for the P2 whose job it will be to get that back on track.

 

The two new boilers were already being constructed to what you refer to as an ‘optimised’ design. Particularly with reference to firebox water space width and staying type and pattern.
This would then have allowed the original boiler to be rebuilt to that same specification at their ‘leisure’ to provide a spare.
But for reasons allegedly of speed, that didn’t happen, and they ended up with a bodged up boiler which has resulted in significant extra spend and time to get to where we are today. In parallel the overrun on the ETMS probably exceeded that of the overrun on the new boiler anyway.

 

Just to add for clarification: completion of the first of the new boilers, which was planned for fitting to Tornado, was delayed due to Covid. It was at this point that the decision was made to overhaul the old boiler because it was thought this would enable a quicker turn around, thereby getting the loco back into service within the (unrealistic?) time frame of 6 months. I suspect that Meiningen were under pressure to complete the overhaul in an unrealistic time frame, which contributed to a rushed, bodged job.

 

I didn't say that the boiler or firebox had been made shorter - actually the reverse - longer!

 

The decision to repair the old boiler was made pre-Covid for speed they said . Covid being worse in Germany was the reason given by the Trust for the delivery delay . This didn’t stand up to fact checking, which shows UK and Germany to be similarly affected.
When the decision to repair was announced at the Convention I immediately queried the knock on effect on the new boilers. Davies deferred to Bunker, who assured me that the repair team and new build team were completely separate and there would be no delay to the new boilers. My response was “if you say so, but to me this appears to be the worst of both worlds, the old boiler will retain the fundamental firebox geometry flaws and the new boilers will be delayed - time will tell”

 

I think you’ve unintentionally hit the nail on the head there Al, throughout the overhaul there was lack of due diligence in the supervision and inspection of WIP at the contractors, who-ever and where-ever they were.

 

If the boiler had been made longer and, as it’s fixed at the smokebox, that would have moved the throat plate away from the wheels and, if the firebox had been made longer that would have moved the backplate further into the cab with no change to the throatplate position relative to the wheels. Neither of these suggestions has happened. AFAIK the barrel hasn’t been touched but I could be wrong. I was stood right next to the loco the other week and the throatplate is still very close to the wheels even after machining but exactly why I couldn’t ascertain from simply looking. Until someone comes up with the detail of what’s happened it is all going to be speculation.

 

That is confusing and counter intuitive, a longer boiler would increase the clearance for the throat plate, not decrease it. and i dont recall any mention of any work on the boiler barrels...Did you mean a longer firebox, ?
If wider pieces have been used at the foundation ring, splaying the foot of the boiler plates out a bit that would have the 'undesired' effect we have seen.

 

Where as this information come from.

 

GuyCarr's post on Saturday is the most recent reference. Where is your source to say otherwise?