Tornado

I couldn't say for sure but 6201 and 6233 always seem(ed) busy, but that may be just an impression.

 

50K is definitely a lot of money to be spending on a boiler after two years. But your assumption that they will have to do so again every two years doesn't stand to reason, unless the implication is that the Trust don't learn from this experience and continue on as before. That's, sincerely, not the case.

I don't know the full details, and I am unlikely to glean anything from the email I've just sent off, but to the people I have spoken to in and around the Trust, this has shaken them a little, it is a lesson that has been learned, and they are doing all they can to bring Tornado back to full health.

You can understand to some extent the "spin" (as it was put earlier), if you remember that Tornado is very much a working engine. I would never say that she works harder than the rest of the mainline engines out there, but having hit 30,000 miles in two years is a very good mileage in preservation. Don't forget, this is a brand new engine with a unique boiler, doing work both on the mainline and on preserved railways, nominally every week at the very least. Teething troubles, whether it was problems with lubrication, or the boiler, or the electric lighting, or whatever, were always going to come up. It's an inevitability - Tornado is an unknown quantity in some areas. That's part of her mystique for me!

What is learned from the building, and running of Tornado, can be learned, and learned well, by other groups building new locomotives, and of course, the A1 Trust for their second locomotive. What has been done with this engine can be so readily dismissed (and is) by "you could have restored this with that money, or rebuilt that with this money", and yet I think the importance of this engine succeeding has been severely underplayed.

If Tornado runs from this repair, runs well, and is reliable to the end of her boiler ticket, then who will remember this repair as anything other than one of a few blips in her early years? If new build steam is seen to be efficient, reliable, and workable on the national network, then others will follow.

Tornado is not just a standard bearer for new mainline steam. A lot more rides on her working well, and reliably, in the next ten years, and I wager that it's not just for the Trust's benefit in building a new P2, it's for any of the new build groups who want their locomotives to go mainline.

In short, If she does well, others will follow her out onto the mainline.

 

I really think the A1 trust must have a close look to the way they are handling this boiler. It's very unusual that a steel boxed boiler needs this kind of extensive repairs after just 2 years of work. And yes, I say 2 years without noticing the mileage, because it must not effect the boiler (in this case the steel firebox) at all!

The Dutch Steam Society (Stoom Stichting Nederland, Rotterdam) uses a coal-fired West-German 01.10 class wich has a enormous steel firebox with a very large combustionchamber. After ten years or running, the boiler had a heavy general overhaul in 2004 by which they replaced several sections of the inner firebox, hundreds of stays with to much wear on them (to thin etc), all of the top bolts (how do you call them?) and of course a full retube of the boiler. The engine is now starting her 7th year in her boilerticket and they never had any trouble with the steel firebox at all! And this engine is running A LOT on Dutch and German mainline!

They handle the boiler with much care. As a starter, they take nearly 15 houres to fire an engine up from cold to hot. Even if the engine had run two days before (so she's still warm) they fire her up very very slowly. Even more important is the cooling down cyclus! They leave the fire burn on the grate until it goes out by itself, they leave the hot ashes in the ashpan hopper to prevent that there will be a cold draft of air through the boiler, before leaving the engine they fill the boiler up till the highest point by using the injector or waterpump. So with the cooling of the boiler, an incredible mass of boiling water is cooling to. So, eventually it goes so smooth and steadily without ANY stress that they have nearly zero maintenance on the steel firebox.

I think this must be possible for the A1 Trust and Tornado, so they have less worries about the steel firebox. On the Europe continent, nearly all the steam engines have a steel boxed boiler and using them without any trouble. Must be possible in the UK to I suppose?

Regards,
Vincent
(The Netherlands)

 

That's a very fair set of points and a very sensible post Vincent. Couldn't agree more, however I would hazard a guess that that which you speak of (specifically, cooling cycles and maintenance) is an area they'll be looking at.

We shall see in due course.

 

Having read the press release on the A1 Trust's website, I'm not sure I follow your line of thinking:

I can't see anywhere in the full press release suggesting that lessons need to, or have been learnt, or that changes to operation need to, or will be made.

There is nothing that says anything other than these repairs are perfectly normal and to be expected, given the work the locomotive has seen. The A1 Trust have not said that they need to do anything different in future from what they have been already, and there is no suggestion that this is a 'one-off'. In fact all their comments lead one to believe that after a further 300 days of operation, (with another 100 ancillary days) the boiler will be back where it is now; in a state that requires the same work completing again.

The Trust's press release is simply saying that the current repair work is a result of normal wear and tear - there is no suggestion that it can be avoided, or that any modifications to the design can prevent it.

Perhaps you are privileged to more information on the subject that isn't currently in the public domain? Certainly in public the Trust are saying there are no problems, just normal wear as a result of use.

 

Considering the amount of non-enthusiasts who visit the A1 Trust's site (at a guess) they probably do not wish to overtly alarm people who may totally get the wrong impression.

Remember when that Darlington Newspaper claimed the boiler on steam test was going to explode? Total tosh based on an insufficient grasp of the facts.

 

Does anybody know if the boiler manufacturer is contributing towards the cost of this job? To be hit with a 50k repair bill after two years work is pretty savage.

 

My thoughts exactly.......

 

Quite possibly, but it seems the A1 Trust's site is the only official source of information on the subject, something many on this forum are only too happy to point out whenever a posting is made that suggests there may be problems, speculates what might be wrong, or suggests what remedial action might be taken. I seem to recall one person was soundly beaten down for daring to 'start unfounded rumours' that the boiler would be lifted and sent back to the manufacturer when no such comment had been made by the Trust on their website... a week or so later there was a press release on the Trust's website to say the boiler was going back to Germany. Mmm.

This forum seems to be inhabited by an awful lot of armchair experts on the Trust's locomotive, many it seems whose only link to the Trust is giving them money, watching it travel past them, or declaring what bloomin' colour it should be! Yet they seem in a position to be able to confidently state that the Trust is doing, or has done, this, that or the other. Given that the Trust has made no such statements on it's website that there is anything other than unavoidable wear and tear as a result of extensive use - just where are all the posters getting their information that this is a one-off problem, and the Trust are now going to alter how they operate the boiler in future to stop it happening again?

The Trust's website is clear - simple wear and tear which is to be expected on the type of boiler and the amount of use it's had. They've made no suggestion that significant alterations to their operating practices are planned to reduce the rate of wear and tear in future - a comment that would be unlikely to cause widespread public panic and mass passenger boycotts. There has been no suggestion from those who receive the supporter's newsletter that the Trust have announced anything different to what's on their website either.

If it's so unacceptable for people to second-guess the problems and their solutions without any official statement from the Trust, why isn't it equally unacceptable for people to speculate and authoratively exclaim that the Trust will doing things different in the future, when there is equally no comment to this effect from the Trust?

8/10's posting suggested that the Trust could be facing a £50k repair bill every two years. Given that the Trust have said these current repairs are just the result of 400 days of use, I can see the logic in this. So presumably after a further 400 days they'll be back in the same position again.

The Trust have made no suggestion that this could be avoided in future by changing their practices, so where have all the people got the idea that the Trust are going to 'learn from the experience' and change things to prevent it happening again after a further 400 days of operation?

...unless of course there is another source of official information seperate from the Trust's website/supporter's newsletter which people are basing their postings on?

 

I can't see why they would if the reason for the repairs is as the Trust state, just down to wear and tear which is to be expected given the amount of use it's had.

If you take your 2 year old car back to the main dealer for a 200,000 mile service and find the bill is a touch larger than you'd hoped, because it's worn out through use, you aren't likely to get much financial sympathy from the garage who are fixing it for you!

 

He may well have done, but not by myself. Let's not tar everyone who posts here with one brush, treat each case on its own merits.

You'll forgive me I hope Mr Bloomer, but us A1 Covenators sometimes do a little more than simply send money. I don't profess to be the most active of covenators, but as and when I can contribute in ways other than the usual covenant a month, I do so. It gets difficult when your home base is now much more more south than it was a year ago, but I try...I do have several friends (also covenators) and a few a little closer than that to the trust, and I like to keep tabs on the general mood and what's going on, as with any supporter of a locomotive, I am sure.

My opinion is simply based on what I've observed - you clearly have inferred something different to me. The extra repairs were a shock, and - frankly - I don't think there's any question of things changing in terms of operating practices behind the scenes.

I think you are going a little over the top. My exact phrase was:

Now, I referred simply to the damage that was found (which was a shock, as far as I am aware), and to be frank every obstacle throws up lessons to be learned and overcome. In this case, they are fixing the boiler. I accept that I could have been more concise, but it was quite early in the morning and sometimes tiredness overcomes. My apologies if I have confused anyone.

Which I feel is an exaggeration of the facts known. This time around, it has cost 50K to make repairs to the boiler. Logic dictates that if the locomotive, after sustained use and specific operating practices, has damaged its boiler in this way, that for the future, changes will be made to avoid this repeating in the future. That is the nature of owning and operating a locomotive, is it not?

Why there is an assumption, so it seems, that the A1 Trust want to run the boiler into the ground every two years, I simply do not know. Other locomotive groups have problems, find the cause, and work around it, so to assume the A1 Trust won't be seems rather unfair?

Come now. On what basis do you say this?

What do other locomotive groups do? What is done in engineering, in general? Given the amount of engineers in, and working with, the Trust, do you not think it a foregone conclusion that preventing this happening again is at the top of their lists?

I personally have no qualms with the A1 Trust's statement because I thought it obvious. The statement on the trust's website is the same as any locomotive group's would be - describing the problems and the outcomes hoped for. I wasn't aware that the entire practices behind the scenes of the A1 Trust was up for scrutiny in this way.

Not as such. But as I've said before, I've spoken amongst some other covenator friends, and a few a little closer, and the general gist is that the extent of the repairs was unexpected (hence the initial shock), they made alternative arrangements, sent it back to Germany, and are proceeding with having the boiler rebuilt. Anything else - such as changed procedures - haven't been discussed but personally I think obvious, not needing saying.

 

In the Trust's comments they say that the repair costs are £50,000. You will note however that there is no statement as to who is paying the £50,000 of, indeed, if it is being shared.

As a covenanter since 1991 I would not be happy if the Trust were footing the whole (or indeed the majority) of the bill. What I can accept, however, is that at this stage any such information comes under the heading of 'commercial confidentiality'


I must say that on a strictly personal level (and speaking as a qualified engineer who specialised in metallurgy at college) I do not accept the 'normal wear and tear/steaming cycles argument'. With the number of days in traffic on the NYMR since the boiler overhaul plus mainline work I would think 60007 has had asimilar number of steaming cycles without the need for similar firebox surgery. It has required new tubes but that I can accept far more easily than Tornado's level of boiler work. I have some thoughts of my own but I feel that airing them in public at present would not be helpful, especially on NatPres where a manageable problem can easily be turned into the boiler was ready to explode.

 

Vorsprung Durch Technik.....................

 

LOL,

I think there is a lot going on behind the scenes!

I think it unlikely that the A1 lot would come out and say that the boiler was a crock of sh1te, even if it was!.

Perhaps the cost is being shared, so the A1 lot are duty bound not to say too much for fear of damage to the Germans reputation?. Who knows?

I think it unlikely that they would come out and say mistakes were made.

However I am suprised that they havn't said lessons have been learnt, and changes made to prevent a reocurrence of the £50k repair every 2 years!.

If I was a covernator, thats what I'd want to hear. Certainly not, the ''its ok boys this is the sort of thing you get with the miles we do'' which is the jist of the A1 lots press release.

If it is, the figures I gave must be accurate!.

P.S What is the cheapest colour of paint?

 

What point are you exactly trying to make?

Your first quote is directly contradicted by the following three. In your opinion, will the A1 Trust change the way they manage the operation of their locomotive or not? I can't seem to work out your position on this.

 

I don't think it does Neil, but I'll try again.

Why is it assumed that the A1 Trust are not changing their operating procedures? To put it simply. I had assumed that as a matter of course. It is what goes on, unsaid, elsewhere. Why should it be any different with the A1 Trust?

I hope that clarifies.

 

I would guess that several posters are asking questions and making assumptions about how the trust have done/will treat their boiler because comparable Euro boilers have not needed this kind of attention between overhalls. Unfortuantely passed happenings have caused some friction between the trust and other active enthusiasts, I don't know what as I've never had any more than an armchair interest in the project, so please dont include me, and this regularly comes back to the surface as can be witnessed on this thread several times.
Jim

 

on the maintainance side of things, how do the people who look after 35028 deal with the cooling down warming up cycles, i ask this because she does simular miles to Tornado and also has a steel fire box if the trust treated tornado in the same manner, then its clear that something is wrong with the design/ construction element of the boiler ?

its alarming to think that what ever caused the problem is going to cost such a vast sum and if it is down to just wear and tear, then whats to say that in the future it will cost as much again? im sorry to have to say this but Clan line and Merchants dont seem to suffer so much with this problem, ,i know the thermic syphons and the corners go, so you cant blame the fact that its a steel firebox as opposed to had they fitted a copper one