Tornado

Re: Un-tried Prototype?

Please try reading the A1 trust's own news update or earlier posts on this thread, the foundation ring has a crack in each corner.

 

Re: Un-tried Prototype?

OK 5E A, we wont shoot you and of course you have the right to post as much as any other; but have you not seen the previous umpteen pages of "debate" about how to construct a boiler / maintain a mainline loco, from umpteen so called experts and those "in the know"
I know I don't have to read all threads, but have to wonder what on earth is going on at Nat Pres. Across other threads we are criticising James S at West Coast for his short and to the point factual comments, indeed demanding that WC should tell the world about events at Carnforth. Then there are the critics of RTC who could better organise railtours themselves; and those expressing concern at the way a recent boiler lift took place.
And then there's me becoming more and more of a grumpy old sod, talking way off topic!
(I'll get me coat)

 

The comment about the A2's boiler might have validity if the loco needed nothing spending at its "10 year" overhaul. If that was the case, I am sure the overhaul would have been done immediately and the loco would be running again.

Okay, we are talking about a 62 year old bpoiler, not a 2 year old boiler, but that rather underlines the total lack of relevance.

Steven

 

The point being they obtained a 10+ year life out of the boiler before needing overhaul which makes it a totally relevant comparison. After 10 years one would expect a boiler to require significant sums of money spending but not after two.

 

One thing for sure is sure is the mainline scene would be a lot poorer without Tornado so lets all wish her a speedy recovery and if we really do care put a quid in the pot to help those guys ensure Tornado has a bright and active future as Im sure another bout of loosing revenue is doing her no favours.

Stan

 

Any thought that Meiningen simply cobbled the boiler together based on the original A1 design is ludicrous. The plate thickness and stay calculations are just two of many that would have had to be carried out to get the dreaded CE mark. However, there are many design details that do not require this sort of calculation and can be subject to the whims and fancies of those concerned with the boiler. Simple examples are tube length and diameter. Possibly of more relevance in Tornado's case is the water space (the gap between the inner and outer firebox plates). I suspect that it is in these dimensional areas that the original boiler design will have been followed.

 

Re: Un-tried Prototype?

You can't have a traditional foundation ring and weld it. If you're going to weld, you need either a U shaped pressing, a la West Country or a relatively thin plate, as in BS2790.

Not really much choice if you are welding.

No wrong there but is that a problem?

Money, plain and simple. A traditional riveted boiler with a copper box is likely to cost a whole lot more that the boiler the A1 team bought. Even with all these repairs it is likely to still be a cheaper option. Don't forget that repairing a welded steel boiler is a lot cheaper than repairing a riveted copper boxed one.

 

As an aside, don't forget that Meiningen made the boiler for 01 1516 (+ Bitterfeld, 27 Nov 1977).

Duck und weg (Runs for cover).

 

I have always understood that the boiler explosion of 01 1516 was caused by a crew unfamiliar with the loco and/or route. And a combination of the loco virtually running out of water and a very fast brake application on a falling grade into the station. With what small amount of water was left in the boiler surging back into incredibly high heat and instantly vapourising just after the loco stopped. Or something similar to that scenario. Others here will put it far better than me.

But my point is that I feel under those circumstances whoever made the boiler was not relevant to the subsequent disaster.

 

If you'll forgive me Oakfield, while I appreciate that the comment in question does read as you have interpreted it, I wonder if it is actually in reference to the size of the new boiler required?

There have been new boilers made for smaller engines, and new fireboxes/boiler barrels for larger engines. As far as I'm aware, no one has built a modern pacific boiler from scratch to "improved" or otherwise "modified" designs in this country as yet, whereas in Germany steam did not end as abruptly as it did here.

Full credit to all of the boiler makers you mention above: without them, preservation in this country would not exist on so many levels. But I sincerely think that Sidmouth's comment was not meant in the vein that you have taken it to mean: simply put, Tornado's boiler is uncharted territory in the first instance being experimental for this country, but even more so when you consider that boiler development elsewhere in the world continued past 1968, and not in the same vein here.

It's not a case of "better elsewhere in the world" necessarily, merely that the experience to build new boilers, modified from the original designs, is there in other countries where it is not so prevalent here. That is how I read Sidmouth's comments anyway.

Far from it being an insult, it's a stark look at the different ways in which railway preservation has had to survive in this country. We must never let our home industries die, I am sure we are all agreed on this, but the A1 Trust tendered for a boiler, Meinengen won the tender, and it was a business decision not necessarily based on a desire to "go British" or "done best" but to have a new boiler made to a specific cost and in a time frame which would benefit the engine and the trust.

Now, we know that sadly this particular experiment hasn't gone without problems.

But in equal measure, there have been a lot of very inflammatory remarks about the state of "foreign" engineering in this thread, which, without all the facts, was unnecessary and equally unpalatable.

I feel that sometimes we're missing the fact that we're now working in an global economy that is getting steadily smaller and wholly more dependent on international cooperation. How many tyres for locomotives in the UK are brought in from abroad? The vast majority. Cost of projects is now under greater scrutiny than ever - it's not a case of "the best of the best" but "what we can afford in this timescale" now.

In conclusion, whilst I can see where your misconception comes from, I sincerely don't believe that Sidmouth's post was intended to slight or slur any manufacturing outfit in this country, merely recognizing that boiler technology in this country did not continue to progress in the same fashion past 1968 that it did elsewhere. That is not a fault of the above named companies, nor a slur: an historical and sad fact of the matter.

That we have groups like LNWR Crewe taking on more and more complicated jobs, and succeeding in them, bodes well for future new builds like The Unknown Warrior (another I am keeping close tabs on). It's a case of keeping the old skills alive and learning new ones day by day.

 

+1 ^^^

What SAC Martin said.

And interesting that Peter Waterman said we are short of skills today on the BBC. Not short of historical know-how, but short of present-day skills.

 

I hope you have taken cover in a safe place, as I think you will find that the 01.5 boilers were not built at Meiningen, but at RAW Halberstadt.

 

A well known boiler designer wrote that locomotive boilers were exempt from British Standards because they did not comply with the higher standards to which boilers were being constructed. He also believes it would be possible to build locomotive boilers to meet the latest version of 2790. There isn't a copper box in sight. There are no pressed ends either. There is however good allowance for expansion and contraction. Further the foundation ring is made from split 114mm pipe, a method that has been used on boilers with a 450 psi working pressure.

The boiler on 60163 is new but not particularly modern. In truth it is a bit of a hybrid and at present a one off. Whatever the issues with it there will be solutions. At a guess there is not enough allowance for thermal movement and the stays are parallel bar with weep holes and not Tross stays. I'd love to see a works drawing!

 

Bye 'ell, that's a fine looking bit of kit. :thumb:

 

Indeed - and yet, within only a few months was reduced to some gas-axed pieces of scrap

 

Bryan, your above hypothesis about vapourisation causing an explosion is most likely incorrect and was disproved by experiments carried out around the turn of the 19th-20th Century. I can't remember exact dates now but it was reasonably well documented in C.H. Hewison's book 'Locomotive Boiler Explosions'. It was determined that the failure was generally due to overheating of the plate causing it to soften and pull off the stays, and had nothing to do with water vapourising which the safety valves could deal with quite adequately. In the case of 01 1516 it is far more likely that low water levels and overheating of the firebox crown caused the explosion.

 

Doch! Du hast vollkommen Recht. I should have known better as I regularly admire the original Kesselschild (Boiler Builder's plate) of 01 519, the first 01.5 to be rebuilt with oil-firing, screwed to friend's wall!