Tornado

The point i am trying to make is i know it i s not the only class 8 engine to work heavy trains at 75mph but the amount of trains worked is far in excess of any other engine .

Up until 1995/6 everything was restricted to 60 mph so had a lot easier life the extra speed come's at a very increased cost.

 

First 6 months of 2010.
35028 11 trips
60162 16 trips (1 of these was a VSOE. 35028 not available.)
70013 18 trips (not available from mid May)

 

I am quite pleased that WCRC has decided not to use Tornado.The shedules that come from DBS are usually better than the ones WCRC produce so as far as I am concerned its carry on as before the recent boiler problems.
Long may the status quo continue.

 

In general Railway preservation is full of mass ego's. Ive never seen anything like it in any other industry considering raiway preservation is both a shoe string and a niche interest industry.
It cant afford to behave like that in the long term. It comes across as either a power trip or a rock star mentality.

Coming back to topic, 60163 is the only steam locomotive manufacturered since WCRC came into existence. So is there an assumption that anything manufactured by BR must have grandfather rights with WCRC (or BR as an approved WCRC supplier)?

as Tornado would have neither BR as a WCRC Supplier or Grandfather rights can one assume there's been an element of discretion applied, or that everything on Tornado, including the Boiler has WCRC as an approved supplier, or every part was tested ?...regardless how it is, was or should have been...... was it something at which point ended with the cylinders ?

Does anyone know the other locomotives that have been worked on by this contractor, have they now been refused by WCRC, maybe there is a wider concern and 60163 is just the first locomotive thats been made public ?

as for the press statements... ultimately people are buying tickets for tours Tornado would not be able to honour... the A1 trust did need to make a statement, to me, it just reads as a very frustrated one ?

 

The comparison against Bulleid Pacific's i think is a good one.

Looking at 34067, it's had a very long mainline stint and done some amazing work in the south, often at short notice.
When it went for winter repairs, it's long term absence suggests it really needed them.

Does anyone have the details to compare 34067 to 60163's mainline work ? - was it GB3 that 34067 worked nearly every day for a week ?
so it maybe a good one.

 

I think it was GB2 Tangmere did alot of travelling. I think people refered to the tour as The Great Tangmere . GB3 I think it was 70013's turn for doing most of the work which may have crept up on it last year.

 

Further website updates

http://www.a1steam.com/index.php?op...adding-back-on&catid=1:latest-news&Itemid=123

including a nice dig at WCRC, for picture 3........

 

Sorry to be picky - It's No.4!

 

How very interesting - Bryn Engineering also did the cylinders on Braunton, and the tubeplate on Leander (a WCR locomotive, no?)

 

Not owned by WCRC, but certainly based at Carnforth.

Regards,

Dan

 

Just a small point in this incredible thread, it is perfectly possible to have DIY work signed off by a Building Inspector. It is also possible for a competent persons work to be rejected by a Building Inspector, so the analogy doesn't work, sorry.
Anyway, I must get back to to my bedtime reading of this thread, it is a real thriller!!

 

35028 wasn't available for 6months injector problem's.

 

Indeed, very interesting... It makes you wonder why it is that WCR had disaproved the A1ST's choice of contractor: Bryn Engineering, afterall they have a proven record; They re-bored the cylinders of 70013, 45231, 34046 and we haven't heard about any trouble with their cylinders so far, so what exactly is the problem?

One can't help but think that their (WCR) insulting the standards of work done by Bryn Engineering, they also seem to insinuate that the A1ST did not choose rightly; Now WCR may have been running and maintaining steam locomotives longer then the A1ST but lets make a few things clear:

•If their's anyone who knows Tornado and all it's parts better than anyone, it's the A1ST (they did build the engine afterall).
•They of course make sure that every part on the engine manufactured/maintained is done to the specified standards/conditions.
•They always put the safety of their/others crew members working on their engine and the pasengers on the trains that their engine is pulling, as their number one priority.

You do also have to wonder that perhaps WCR just, quite simply, didn't like the fact that the A1ST didn't take their advice; correct me if I'm wrong, but if your in a partnership with another group, then surely, you have to accept that you won't agree on everything; And you would have come to a mutual agreement, tht works for both groups, not break the partnership just like that.

 

All 3 locos had well documented problems in 2nd half of 2010. That is why I only did the first 6 months.

 

As Bryn engineering have in the past undertaken work on West Coast approved engines, then there must be very good reasons why now they are not an approoved supplier to West Coast i think that there is a lot that is as yet unknown .

i just hope that this is not a decision that in time will turn round and bite the A1 trust

 

In answer to posts 2752 & 2753, 70013's firebox problems were very similar those suffered by 70000 in the 1970's and early 1980's.

 

It already has, look at all the bad press its got on here and in the railway press. . . . .

 

Having looked at the captions, things become a bit clearer. I can understand WCRC's position a lot more.

 

i was saying that more so from an engineering point of view what if it comes to light that there are concerns with the standard of work carried out in the past by this companies staff which leads to possible failures in the future? thats what i meant , im am of course, not saying that there is, merely saying that in the future something could come to light that causes the engine to be failed in traffic

 

I think that's a mite unfair Martin - there is absolutely nothing to suggest the work carried out Bryn Engineering - on any of the locomotives they worked on previously - have had anything but a satisfactory level of engineering. I think there's a lot more being read into this whole saga than is either fair or acceptable.