P2 Locomotive Company and related matters

Don't know if this is in the public domain, but puts 60163's woes into context.

A major UK bridgebuilder, who supplies large steel I beams for construction work, has been found to not have the correct "paperwork", in place to confirm welding of said beams.
In effect they have been welded incorrectly.
These are already in use over the national road network, and have been found to structurally unsafe, and are now weight and speed restricted, due to "Defective Welding".
One of these bridges is very local to me, don't need to be Einstein to work out where, it also crosses the ECML.
Traffic chaos that was due to stop last xmas, still continues, as they work to find a fix, which according to a company we deal with who work with NR, is impossible.
He expects the company to go into receivership, then all beams will require replacement to become safe again, and this is all over the country.

 

Ah, there's "welding" and welding. This particular example of clanger dropping is well know about in the construction industry and it will be interesting to see how the problems are overcome. However I won't mention the name of the company on here in case it crashes the share price! It's not hard to find on the internet.

 

Yes, support is required if you don’t want the welded parts moving. The more heat that is put in, the more un-constrained parts will move. Constraining the parts during welding prevents deformation, but it does not prevent residual stresses building up as each weldment is added to the structure. It’s important to note that on these boilers there will be multiple passes, it won’t be one pass and done, there will be filler welds and capping welds, which means more heat going in and more deformation if the part isn’t constrained.

A boiler is a wear item. It’s going to crack and leak, and stays are going to break. It’s a byproduct of the design itself. But, I strongly believe for an all welded structure, it would be better to remove as much of the residual stress as possible, particularly around the firebox as it has so much welding in it. The barrel itself, the stresses will probably come out at the hydro test, but for the firebox, it’s unlikely the hydro test is going to get all the residual stress from welding out of the structure.

 

After the disaster with the Australian 3801, you would have thought that Meiningen would have learnt their lessons. The new Meiningen-supplied boiler had dimensional, manufacturing and technical issues. In the end the locomotive was fitted with the original repaired boiler.

Are the Hengist group still proceeding with their all-welded boiler? If so, Meiningen is the only builder (and repairer) of welded locomotive boilers in mainland Europe. As far as I know, the only builder of such boilers in the UK is the Ffestiniog.

 

What ever became of that... any litigation?

 

I'm not sure. It cost £600k and was returned to Germany once but was still declared unusable on return. It was paid for by the Australian taxpayer so no doubt they would have received a full refund. Presumably it's now languishing somewhere or has been scrapped.

 

If You are referring to the Tornado Boilers, As I understand it Meiningen were not happy with the design particularly the waterspace around the firebox and therefore the length/flexibility of the stays and would only procede if the A1 trust took responsibilty for the CE accredition thereby avoiding litigation.


As an aside on the original copper boxed boilers how was the differential expansion allowed for in the stays? The coefficient of expansion is greater for copper and the inner box is subject to more heat than the wrapper, therefore a copper box is going to move much more in relation to the steel wrapper than a steel box is. I've read somewhere about a 'new' copper firebox boiler being withdrawn for a 'Ten Year' with two rows of broken Monel stays.

 

'Hengist' are at the moment set on a steel firebox but are more keen on UK build than for any particular method of production. CTL Seal regularly produce large and complex welded fabrications but are not boiler makers. Suspect that with supervision boiler barrel , outer and inner firebox would not be a problem for them to construct, but an experienced boiler maker would be required to do the assembly, tube and staying work.

 

Their website still states that their boiler will be welded, not riveted, so out of date?

https://www.72010-hengist.co.uk/our-project

 

Not out of date, just not set in stone...

 

I know SFA about boilers .. I was referring to the Australian boiler fiasco, see previous posts...m

 

O.K. I really have no idea about Australian/Germanic litigation, but I do know where I wouldn't be going for Boilerwork.

 

Except if you have a welded boiler, especially in mainland Europe, you have zero choice!

 

I'd have the same choice as I have over here, I've got a yard, a big hammer and a directory of coded welders.

 

That is why, given the problems that are being found , that The best option, long term, would be to not build a welded boiler for the P2, but to revert to a traditional riveted construction, you could get away with a partially welded/ riveted construction, if the firebox is steel, but, I would base it on known British methods, because we have plenty of experience and knowledge, then, once the P2 is finished, you have ten years to fund another boiler again, rivetted, to replace the welded one.
But the A1 Trust would have to do a re- boot, new trustees, new people in charge, and a targeted fund raising to build a new boiler, and finish the P2, then an overhaul fund raising for Tornado, which, if Darlington has the machinery to do it, should be done in house, with a respected and trusted project leader.

 

There might be problems certifying a boiler of welded/riveted construction, especially a one off. The main advantage of a welded boiler is the firebox itself and the UK doesn't have any recent experience of making such complete boilers. The nearest to it is the inner fireboxes for Bulleids by the SDR but that's way short of a complete boiler and is to an existing design.

 

No litigation as such. The boiler was only half paid for, since it was not rectified when returned to Germany, nothing else was paid on return to Australia. The boiler is now in store, I think at Thirlmere. With a lot of rectification, it may end up being fitted to 3830 some time in the future.

 

Exactly all new design work et al for what would be a hybrid...and extra cost. Surely having made the cylinder block from a welded structure "know how" exists for FEA to weld an all steel boiler and a jig to restrain it under welding and also in the stress relieving process ? It seems to me skirting around the problem of bad management and poor workmanship, (the real problem), by "reinventing the wheel" is not joined up thinking .....

 

I've just received the Mikado Messenger with the 2nd boiler seemingly ok... I thought it was u/s....or am I going senile?

 

I’ll believe it when I see it sitting square in the frames. If you look at the MM it is geared towards extracting more money from us!