Tornado

Deleted

 

You'll know all about rippled firebox plates, then?

 

Believe me, there are other things that we could discuss besides the boiler. The A1 team have and awful lot on their plate at the moment and, as someone very much involved with other locos, I really feel for them.
There may be some OTT posts on here but I don't think that any lines have been crossed. If you think that peoples' opinions are unfounded , shoot them down with reasoned arguments rather than asking for the thread to be locked.

 

This thread is supposed to be about Tornado, so has the above comment got anything to do with the loco or is it just part of the general degeneration of this thread into a general boilers, stays, fireboxes etc discussion?

Dave B

 

It has everything to do with Tornado. The boiler hasn't gone back to Germany simply for stay replacement and foundation ring repairs. Expect a lot more work.

 

Fair enough, so Tornado has rippled firebox plates then is what you're saying. That's not one of the things mentioned on the website or on the letter sent out to Covenantors. Are you part of the A1 Trust engineering team?

Dave B

 

Looks like A1SLT are making a good job of their support coach.
Discuss....

 

No. Not part of the A1 team.

 

Then I must ask - can you substantiate this claim?

Most of what has been written in this thread has been unsubstantiated. I must echo Sheff at my unhappiness at the implicit allegations made regarding Tornado's operation. Such allegations only serve to harm everyone in preservation in the long run.

Lord knows, I wonder how we've survived up to this point if we were to have this with every engine.

 

If you really want this thread to die out you should consider not popping your head up like a demented jack in a box every time you think there is a contentious post.

As it happens, I suspect Steve is reasonably well informed, engineering wise, on what is going on with 60163 - are you? If you aren't, it would be better to shut up.

Also you don't seem to have got your head round the fact that the level of interest is because 60163 has a boiler that is just around two years old and is already into its second bout of serious stay replacement. Whether or not most of these are precautionary, I can't think of another boiler from another main line engine, (boilers which are without exception overhauled and decades old, rather than brand new), that has required this level of work in such a short space of time. That is fact, regardless of how the damage has been sustained. Yes, 60163 has done a lot of work, but so did 34067 and it did not have similar problems.

It is therefore inevitable that there will be intense interest in what is going on, and whether the design is flawed or has been operated in a way that has caused the damage. For what it is worth, I think it is likely to be the former issue but I'm not an engineer so my opinion is of no value.. Sadly, despite your apparently self-appoiinted role as A1SLST apologist you don't seem to me to have the technical expertise of some of those who are posting here to be able to contribute meaningfully.

 

The thread is being discussed in the moderator forum, there are claims both for and against the thread.

There are some unsubstantiated comments, which may not be to everyone's pallette, but also underlining this there has been some truth (only a few pages back Noelist was pillaried for suggesting the boiler was being sent back to Germany) and look where we are now.
Off line of this thread several members have expressed/ inidicated additional information etc which as yet has not appeared online, which may or may not be true.

stepping back whilst everyone is passionate about Tornado, dare I say, it is only an engine and it helps to keep the discussion impersonal.
Everyone is entitled to an opinion, I would encourage everyone to share an opinion with facts, from both sides of discussion.
If there is a rumour, be clear to label it as such, so there is no misunderstanding and hence a factual answer may ensue.

There's no need for people to walk away from the forum just because of a different point of view.
I'm sure everyone wants to see Tornado working again.

please feel free to pm any of the moderators to discuss.

 

I can still ask for some evidence, surely?

My post was actually aimed at Eightpot's comments. My apologies to Steve - the crux of my post was not aimed at you.

It is of great concern to me. We're all worried, covenators/trust members/engineers alike. What I am 1000% more concerned about is that the language used by certain posters implies that Tornado has operated on the mainline dangerously. That is an implication which - as far as I understand and can see - and believe, I might add - is completely unfounded. This is the sort of thing that will end up removing steam from the mainline in this country, particularly for a high profile engine such as Tornado.

I challenge that your opinion is of no value. You've spoken quite eloquently before in this thread and asked some questions I personally felt were relevant to the current discussion on the boiler.

No, of course not - 23, English Graduate, and willing to learn. I'd love to contribute to a discussion on boilers meaningfully - and that is why, if you actually read through the comments in this thread, I have asked relevant questions. Feel free to gloss over all of those mind!

But with all the comments surrounding a "possible boiler explosion" and "lucky" regarding Tornado's maintenance, as a covenator to the Trust, of course I am going to defend their position, and thus my own, as a supporter, when things like the above come up - it affects the engine, the trust, and all who put their hard earned cash towards it. We all want to see it succeed, and of course feel slighted when it's brought into question. That surely, is a natural response?

I might add, what ulterior motives are at play here for the general nature of all the posts slamming the boiler's design (mostly eightpot's!) and sensationalizing the nature of the beast?

A1 Apologist I may be - but I think I'm looking at the bigger picture far more than a few posters who are very keen to get technical and speculate but are completely unconcerned with the ramifications of their own postings.

 

What I don't get about all this "passionate debate" regarding Tornado is why it's gotten to a level where a middle ground cannot be found.

60163 is running to a brand new boiler design. 2 years in and they are discovering faults in the design. This I would argue, is normal for a design of its nature.

It's not a secret that the loco's required repairs are substantial, which is why its being sent to the manufacturer to be done. The best people for the job.

So yes the loco at time of withdrawal wasnt in a very good condition. To call into question the A1 trust's competence because of this, could be argued as an overreaction or indeed a somewhat baseless attack on the trust.

Fact is, at first sign of problems throughout the loco's brief history it has been withdrawn immediatly and both the required and precautionary maintenance done before it is allowed to pull revenue services again.

That shows me that the A1 trust are doing right by their engine. They have found all problems in good time and before its been a major risk to anyone. No moreso than any other preserved loco at the end of it's ticket has the potential to be anyway.

It's all very well to try and talk down the locomotive by using the argument that the stays have been replaced multiple times, but again this was precautionary and is part of the learning curve of boiler designs. One only has to look at scotsman to see what conditions some locos have been allowed to run on the main line in and somehow this goes without a word, because its not a "popular" move.

End of the day one side is correct, in my view, that 60163 was withdrawn with major problems and may well have not been caught the second that they occured.

The other side however is also correct to say that the A1 trust could not have been expected to find a fault until the loco's performance would give them any reason to find anything out of the ordinary that couldnt be gained from a routine inspection.

Simple case of a loco suffering ongoing teething troubles, but the reaction from their owners has been sterling.

That I put to you gents, is the middle ground, in my personal opinion anyway.

 

Just a thought, we have been using 34067 for comparison but what about 35028, she lugs around 600 tons 20 times a year, pretty hard work for her.

 

I fully agree with this. Whilst we are all interested and may have our views, we don't have access to the detailed facts. As far as I'm concerned the A1SLT have acted promptly and responsibly and to suggest otherwise is close to being libelous. What has happened is unfortunate but they are handling it as well as anyone could. Everyone's main concern should be that the underlying problems are identified and rectified.

I don't think 35028 is a particularly good comparison. 60163 is running 2-3 times a week, opering from different depots with a wier variety of crews and water wheras 35028 runs once every 2-1/2 weeks on average, and always from the same depot. I think the A1 probably leads a lot harder life!

 

Who moderates the moderator forum?

 

This is my first and last post on this forum.

As a long time covenentor and current member of 60163's mainline support crew, I am deeply saddened and shocked by some of the ill informed, malicious and dangerous gossip being posted about the engine on this forum.

I have worked around the mainline steam scene for 10 years helping to crew various locos for various organisations. I can honestly say that the A1 Trust's officers and engineers are among the best in the business. From personal experience, their dedication, safety consciousness and devotion to ensuring 60163 is maintained and operated to the highest standards cannot be questioned. Those people responsible here for, what I can only describe as childish jibes, should IMHO be ashamed of themselves. While no sensible rail professional would pay a blind bit of notice to their ill informed and wildly speculative comments to a hungry journalist hunting for a 'good story' some of the posts on here could prompt them to write the sensational reaction in the national press which would do the steam preservation movement massive harm in the eyes of the paying passenger; undoing years of hard work by many thousands of people. I would go as far as to say that these people's comments could probably be compared, in terms of endangering steam's future on the national network, to those idiot members of the public who, under the banner of 'steam enthusiast', jeopardise steam's future on the mainline through flagrant breaches of Network Rail line side safety rules. Please, please stop this nonsense now.

 

I quite agree with Sidmouth. Not only more rumours but people telling someone to shut up if they have no engineering knowledge of 60163, or don't seem to have the technical expertise of some of those who are posting here to be able to contribute meaningfully. Both comments addressed to someone who contributes financially to Tornado and has as much right to post on here as anyone else and, irrespective of whether he has engineering knowledge or not, the right to question some of what is being said. Both comments to me were out of order and are what gives this forum a bad name and people like Sheff, Peter999R and others reason to leave.

Peter999R, if you're who I think you are can I say thanks for the informed chats I've had with you at Darlington and elsewhere.

Dave B

 

Well well well, it makes a change to read a heated discussion on this forum about anything other than the colour of the paint!

When forum threads are asked to be locked, I always find it interesting if the moderators would be open enough to tell the other forum members who has asked for it to be locked?

Is it members who have had their nose put out of joint? or is it the A1 locomotive trust?

As has been noted, much info on this thread has been consistent with the rumours we all hear in the pub or via mates etc.

Some of it too has been proven to be correct. So those of you who are very quick to point fingers need to be mindfull of this.

Onr thing that seems to have been lost on most of you, or certainly it seems to have is that the boiler on the A1 is to all intents and purposes a prototype. Whilst it is a development of the LNER/BR design, the fact that it is all welded means that it is a very different animal.

No doubt the diagramme 118 (?) was a development of a long line of flanged and rivetted boilers, so the past lessons will have been learnt and problem areas will have been designed and detailed by the drawing office to then best practice. There is very little experience of fully welded boiler of this size in the UK, and so the A1's boiler is probably based on both UK and German experience, but as the first of its kind it is a prototype.

A1's boiler is fully welded, this means that the connections have completely different stiffness to its rivetted predeccessor and as such the boiler will behave differently with different stresses in different places. Those of you with the competence to use perhaps a shell model on any finite element structural analysis software may like to have a play and see for themselves. It is easy to model pressure, but not so easy to model the different expansion of the plates due to the different temperatures of different parts of the boiler. This is the cyclic loading from hot cold, hot cold etc, and in my experience of smaller boilers it is this cyclic loading causes grooving in plates and necking/breaking of stays.

Now clearly there are problems with the boiler. I'm guessing the A1 trust are playing their cards close to their chest for many reasons. But I suspect the biggest is as yet they dont know why the defects have occured. The best people to advise on this is the guys in Germany and their boiler inspector and no doubt all will come out in the wash.

Some of you are playing the blame game, but as with most things I suspect it will not rest squarely with one organisation. Examples from my line of work include poor/incorrect design specification issued by the client for tender. Bad poor workmanship bythe contractor. Issues with materials supplied to the contractor by a 3rd party, sometimes the material isn't what the cert says it is!. Poor operating practices by those who operate the item. Poor design. All sorts of issues.

We shall have to wait and see. I expect no one will have the finger pointed at them, so we shall have to draw out conclusions from the outcome. Usually its pretty easy to figure out!.