Tornado

Then I must ask, given this information, will you name your source and the company which declined it?

As I said earlier to the gentlemen who earlier made a similar claim, it is double standards to claim something which may harm the Trust's reputation, but not cite the source or the company in question for fear of damaging their reputation.

I personally don't doubt your credentials or your claim, having spoken with you privately on this matter before, but surely the best way of addressing this "situation" as it has been put, is for everyone - Trust, covenators, onlookers and similar - to have an open discussion on this matter, with all the facts to hand, and an open mind as to the problems that have occurred?

It helps absolutely no one in preservation if we continue to argue in this vein. If mistakes have been made, then agreeably the covenators to the trust should be told. Honesty is always the best policy, and if a P2 is on the cards, people will not want the same mistakes to be made in the future.

By the same token, all anyone here wants is to see the locomotive in question steam again, and run reliably for the future. Therefore it would be prudent for all sides of the debate to start afresh, and see where we go from here, after the relevant questions have been asked, answered, and further discussed.

 

Two replies here to 1) Keith 6233.

There were no questions as to safety as to the boiler design, just to longevity and the trust were cautioned by several persons as to this, thus there were no problems in issuing the reqired documents. There was never any danger of boiler Explosions or the like as some speculated here earlier.and 2) to S.A.C. Martin, no I will not put a specific individuals name in the public domain., it has no real relevance here and there is nothing to be gained in any practical terms by so doing.

What annoys me is the constant smear by innuendo of the hard working and dedicated people in the U.K. preservation Industry, both paid and unpaid while some accept the propaganda of half truths and mis-information spread by others. And those are my last words on this subject.

 

Read Page 72 of the Daily Express today, and you will see my first love, congratulations on your "stint" with preserved steam, however this is 2011, and things move on.

It seems to me you have an axe to grind, and are using this thread to do so....

 

It seams to me that 'Oakfield' is getting is getting near to the nub of the problems and you don't like it - I feel sad that he feels he will not say anything further on the situation due to the likes of the above post?

 

We shall agree to disagree on this matter then.

I keep reading back through this thread, and I cannot fathom where or what these smears are.

Everyone in this thread who has said that "a boiler of this size had not been built in the UK for forty years or more" is factually correct. No boiler for a large pacific locomotive or similarly sized has been built from scratch in the United Kingdom.

However, most posters stating the above, then quantify this by saying that "the standard of boiler repair and renewal work in the UK is of an excellent standard". Both are factually correct, and not exclusive of one another.

We know from the work at Ian Riley's works, Pete Waterman's Crewe Works, the Flour Mill, Loughborough, Ropley, and many other centres of locomotive repair and engineering excellence, that old boilers can be repaired to frankly incredible specifications in this day and age. That is not in dispute.

But none of these locomotive works has to date built an all new boiler, to what is practically a prototype design. Meinengen in Germany had done so several times over a period of nearly fifty years.

I remember a time, just prior to Tornado's launch, many people bemoaning the fact that Scotsman was going to use an A3 boiler when a new boiler of Tornado's type was going to cost roughly a third of the total cost that it has taken to overhaul the current one.

That we've now seen both a new build pacific boiler and a revitalized A3 boiler to an excellent standard in the last few years shows how good the level of work is in the UK, and that for Tornado to steam in 2008, having the boiler built in Germany has proved to be a good decision for time against cost.

We can only speculate whether the boiler will be reliable in the future as a result of its fixes this time around.

Surely now the time for "I told you so" - as it seems to be a case of - is past? Or if that is really what is needed, can we get on with it and get it out in the open, discussed, and then we move on?

Otherwise this locomotive - which has been a boon for railway preservation in many ways since its launch - will simply suffer at the hands of arguing amongst its own members/covenators and onlookers alike.

 

I'm not sure that, even after all this debate, you have really grasped what the real issue is, which is confidence in the engineering expertise being applied to 60163. The official A1SLT line seems to be that the level of repairs needed is consistent with the amount of work the loco has done to date, but I don't think anyone really accepts that. On the NYMR 3672 had a new steel firebox fitted and worked for 10yrs and 110,000 miles without problems and although 80135 had problems with its steel 'box it still managed 10years and approaching 100,000 miles on it. These locos aren't running on the main line at 60+ but they're working hard for a lot of their working day.

If, then, one accepts that not all is well with 60163's 'box it seems to me that the A1SLT should be honest about the problems and give some detail about any modifications made. Without modification it isn't obvious, to me at least, is why one would expect like-for-like repairs to last any longer than the original. If modifications are being made, why be secretive? - its far better to admit that the initial design was sub-optimal and explain what modifications have been made, and why. As has been pointed out, they have the excuse that this is a prototype boiler and in my opinion it would be better to come clean and hide behind that than remain tight lippped on the subject and have people wonder if they really know and understand what they are doing.

 

If that is your issue, then I accept that. It is not my personal issue. If this is an issue at the level of the perceived safety of the locomotive, then that's a whole other matter. But I note that Oakfield covered that and stated.

Except, as noted earlier by other members, including myself, researching the similar problems of the Bulleid Pacifics, there is a degree of consistency with the problems Tornado has had, and that of the Bulleid Pacific boilers with their own problems when built.

You have clearly ignored all of the quotations which have been given, time and again, by myself and other members. All of the fixes are in the public domain. Nobody has stated - even those "in the know" - that there are other modifications being made not listed by the trust. Therefore one can only conclude that the fixes they have listed (which are available for all to read in the news section of the Trust's website) are all the fixes being made, and that they are being wholly honest.

I cannot see that they are being secretive, in any area other than why the boiler has had the problems it has had. The fixes have been stated publicly, and several times in this thread by several different posters, confirming the same information several times over.

Yet I note with a degree of exasperation that the "prototype boiler" point has come from no less than Mark Allatt in Steam Railway Magazine last month, and was reported in this very thread not too long ago.

Is it a case of trying to make problems seem more controversial than they are? I simply do not understand your stance here. You have been given the information they have put out, and people close to the trust and locomotive have confirmed the degree of repairs being made. There has been nothing secretive about the extent of the repairs at all.

I am amazed at being constantly told I am blind to the problems of the trust, when it seems people are blind to the information freely available and in the public domain.

 

The difference between what 61624 says and what you repeat Simon, is that he's not asking what has been done to the boiler but why has it been done and it's this 'why' that is raising all the issues. There's a subtle difference between the two points.

 

Just so we're all looking at the same hymn book, please add the additional detail that I seem to be missing:

The firebox sides are being replaced - no problem with that

650 stays are being replaced as part of that process, and because many of them were broken (hence the reported quilting) and another 450 as a precautionary measure. Have they been replaced like for like? I haven't seen anything anything other than a suggestion that they were being replaced by hollow stays, and I'm not sure how these would perform differently other than perhaps indicating leaks sooner. I've seen suggestions of more flexible stays (which extensively used, apparently very successfully, on 3672) but not from the A1SLT. I've also heard suggestions from boilermakers hat weld preps used originally were inappropriate and contributed to the premature failure of the stays. If I've heard these, chances are people associated with the loco will have and as I see it it would be a good idea , now that the work is complete, to issue a paper summarising what has been done and why. This will not be the last all welded boiler to made so there's probably useful information for anyone else contemplating one.

I'm a scientist by training and we publish our experimental results. Not everything works as expected and a prototype boiler is an experiment. Publish what went wrong and no-one will think worse of the Trust if it made mistakes, provided others can learn from them. That's the way science and engineering progress.

 

Quick one sonny, seams are what coal was dug from, and if he is so clever, why did he not offer his thoughts to the trust.

Or did he sit back instead and think, lets hope it goes wrong, that is more like his attitude, and as for not posting again, if it is just to use his spoon to stir things up, he is wont be missed.....

 

You seem to be a bit in the dark, which is odd given the plethora of info on here and elsewhere. So the re-capitulate.... the original stays have drilled tell-tales, so they already give an early warning of any cracking before failure - hence why two batches were replaced mid 2010. The new stays are to be made from tube, so will have different properties to drilled bar I imagine. They will also protrude into the box, the originals were flush, due to the possibility of oil-firing I believe, and so the welds will be different I would think. The foundation ring corners will be machined differently too, including polishing to reduce stress cracking.

I am research engineer, (half scientist/half engineer) so as you say, we publish our experimental results - but only once we've tested them and subjected them to peer review etc. I'm not sure that the A1 Trust are in that position yet. Perhaps they want to see how the boiler performs in service before publishing the full story half cocked? And/or perhaps there are contractural reasons? - we just don't know, but I'm happy to wait a while. Iain

 

A friend is a chartered engineer, and retired as the Chief Mechanical Engineer of a UK based civil engineering company involved with pressure vessels in the electricity generating industry. At the time of "Tornado's" firebox problems early last summer he contacted the A1SLT to offer his services free of charge to help overcome the situation.

He didn't even get an acknowledgement.

 

Do you know who he contacted and how plse?

 

"When the experts fail let the idiots have a go." - Old Hertfordshire saying.

 

Post 1945 Meiningen has built only 25 welded boilers, and that was over the period 1959 to 1975. This does not take into account the few made since 1989.

 

I was under the impression that the reason the Germans were chosen to build the boiler was because they have far more experience in building welded steel fireboxed boilers than we have (allbeit a long time ago according to Mr 8 cylinders!), with the majority of UK built boilers having copper boxes. Nothing to do with lack of faith in the UK boiler industry. Have tubular stays been chosen for the rebuild over drilled solid one due to fexlibilty issues?

 

That I can get on with. If that's what is causing the fuss - is the case simply that no one knows the exact why yet?

Add to that the replacement of the firebox sides. Which in my view, given what I read on the Bulleid pacifics, is an extreme precautionary measure. I am by no means suggesting Tornado has been subject to "firebox plate bulge" as that experienced on a particular Bulleid Pacific, related by Cecil J.Allen, but it is interesting that this measure has been taken as a precaution when no such problems had occurred with the A1 boiler.

An absolutely fair request, with sound reasoning. Would it not be prudent to perhaps contact the trust and ask if one is possible?

That too I can get on board with, happily.

 

Possibly via their e-mail address. I'll be seeing him on Sunday, will ask him then.

 

Ok looking through this thread again people seem to be getting a bit personal towards each other in what continues to be a very interesting debate, even if some of it is going over old ground.


There have again been a couple of reported posts but nothing that has been posted recently has been removed. Some have been reported as erring on the side of insulting other members and industry groups.

Please consider how your posts may be interpreted by others before hitting the submit button.

Thank you, Neil.

 

Not being a conventor to the trust I am not in possession of detailed information. I am quite aware that a pacific boiler has not been built in this country. The statement from the trust that you quote seems to contradict itself viz; Why would someone quote if they did'nt think they were capable of building it? Maybe if a quote was made and was too expensive, the party may have simply been covering themselves for problems that they percieved would occur in future.