Tornado

Some people may be baffled by the captions now and will wonder what the dig at WCRC was about.

For the record the caption has been reworded, and no longer contains details on who did the rebore, the complimentary remarks regarding the work done have also gone.

It was strange though, to see the A1 steam trust website naming the contractor who had done the work that has led to issues with acceptance and so on with WCRC.

 

BUT there has to be something that WRC did'nt like or approve of to make them to state that they are 'NOT a approved contractor' before the work commenced. I doubt we'll ever be told the full story but how can 'you' make such a sweeping statement without all the facts?

 

That is just not true. As long as the pressure is maintained, the water inside it will remain at the same temperature. The only way to cool the boiler would be to release all its pressure and put the fresh water directly into the boiler. The only part that would significantly cool would be the cylinders. The fire would maintain the firebox at a high % of the temperature it was at when it was working hard.

 

So not only have they tried to drub WCR on their web site but have also put the contractor's name into the spotlight as a 'non approved contractor' - the trust really do have a way of upsetting people dont they! I'll say it again should'nt heads be rolling?

 

Not quite the area of concern is the the platework of the firebox, when a loco is worked had the fire gets hotter (a lot hotter) therefore there is a BIG temperature differential in these plates when working hard compared to when stationary.

 

They will cool, but if anything on the boiler side of them the temperature change will have been limited by the fact that the boiler water in in contact with them at all times. If there is a design fault and the gap is too narrow you then get hot pockets developing as the boiler side is only cooled by steam. If that was the case then you would get a massive temp difference. However is was boiler temperature that was mentioned, not firebox so thats neither here nor there.

 

Having read the A1Trust statement again, the statement "due diligence" appears to have been overlooked by many. The mention of "ego,s" has been mentioned.............an element of this would not suprise me, having experienced this personally, in other spheres where "ego,s" are involved. I just hope that this situation does not boil over into litigation, which would be a shame in what I think has been a fine achievement of British engineering.

 

So if you are running at near max steaming rate which requires a big fire and then stop for 1/2 a hour shutting the dampers will not stop it blowing off, the only thing is to bring the temperature down by putting cold water in .then when on the move again the temperature in the firebox is back to where you started which is not good .

As for the other subject there is a saying in engineering that you are only as good as your last job so perhaps somebody was not happy with some previous work.

 

Re the boiler. Oil firing produces instant and high heat. It was a problem with traditional copper boxes and screwed stays, largely overcome by going to steel fireboxes and welded stays. Oil firing will give you far more frequent and rapid temperature changes than any coal fire. Any suggestion that this is the cause of the problem is pure spin; or ignorance.
Re the 'other' subject. I'm 100% in agreement with keith6233's statement. All the paperwork in the world won't overcome a bad experience and it doesn't simply have to be bad workmanship. Contracts, personalities or any of the other things that can sour a relationship all influence people.

 

Do you know whether they asked Bryn for permission or not?

 

What about firebox management? Take going over Shap for instance. Maximum steam production is required to the summit, then to Carlisle the fire is run down until a start is required out of the station and the fire is carefully built up for departure. The way you are talking you have a big fire all the time when the loco is running, which is nonsense. The loco should be fired for the road it is travelling on.

 

How can you make such a statement without evidence to the contrary?

 

It appears from an article in 'Railway Herald' that WCRC did indeed inspect 'Tornado' as did a number of other bodies and nothing wrong was found. See http://www.railwayherald.com/magazine/pdf/RHUK/Issue265.pdf (page 10).

I get the impression that WCRC has a TQM (Total Quality Management) culture. BT introduced this approach to management in the nineties and it was a bureaucrats dream. Everything had to be documented and once documented couldn't be changed unless a process (which itself had to be documented) was gone through at great expense.

I really don't think anything is wrong with 'Tornado'. I think the problem lies in the management culture at WCRC and if I were a shareholder I'd be concerned!

Regards

 

I did'nt make a statement one way or the other but YOU did . .

 

Unfortunately it's not right to 'blame' WCRC for having a SMS - it's applicable to anyone who wants to run trains. DBS will have a similar policy.

 

Originally Posted by fergusmacg
So not only have they tried to drub WCR on their web site but have also put the contractor's name into the spotlight as a 'non approved contractor' - the trust really do have a way of upsetting people dont they! I'll say it again should'nt heads be rolling?

It's mentioned in several of the postings above for a start try 2715 but there are others . . .

 

Yes Fergus: because my statement is based on what IS in the public domain. They are an engineering firm who have worked on several WCR engines, and yes - there is nothing outwardly to suggest that they have poor engineering standards or that something has happened previously, as YOU suggest.

I would like to know, sincerely, where your self interest lies: you seem awfully concerned with who is at the top of the A1 Trust and to such an extent you keep asking for heads to roll with little in the way to prove, one way or another, that the locomotive in question is being mismanaged.

In short, put up or shut up.

 

I think you have now reached the conclusion of all this - why does the DBS SMS allow this repair to be acceptable for main line operation under their Safety Certificate, but not WCRC's SMS to allow operation under their Safety Certificate?

Previous precedent for this is 71000 with respect to the method of manufacture of the boiler tubes. Fine for DBS to run it, but WCRC won't.

At the end of the day this problem could easily be resolved (as can all assurance based issues), one or both of the parties appear not have the will to do so for whatever reason.

Regards,

Dan

 

Yawn - where have I said its been mismanaged what I've repeatedly said is the information put out by the trust doesn’t add up. This was for example on the boiler - the recent piece in steam railway does indeed indicate up to that point the trust had not been not putting up the full story, as much of what is on there can be lifted direct from this blog and was contrary to the web site of the trust at the time or indeed what you had said on your postings.

On the more recent situation I have never said the work itself is unfit all I've said is that WCR did not approve of the contractor I don’t know why but there has to be a reason. It just struck me that the trust has gone about this in a funny way. It's like if you had a new car which you wanted to maintain its warranty, whilst the local back street garage can do the servicing (and will probably do a better job?) you would not risk taking the work there because the warranty would then be void.

I always find the line ‘put up or shut up’ a sign of weakness don’t you think, oh and please don’t put words into my mouth. So on reflection I do say the trust are missmanaging the loco not that its working and fit to run (although the spat with WCRC will put some some doubt in some minds) but the way it handles its public relations, and it's decision making process this does need an overhaul??

 

If I was in the management of the A1 Trust I would definitely do things different from what they are doing now. Ok, there is a disagreement between the A1 Trust and WCRC about the contractor who rebored the cylinder liners. I think it would be better for the future of the loco and it's trust if the A1 Trust prevent themselves for making statements to companies who can be important in the near future. Just take the way WCRC are handling as a "fact" you can not discuss about. End of the story. What do you have to do to resolve it? Or another rebore or replacement of the cylinder liners. I think it's worth the investment instead of al this bad advertisement that is questioning the A1 Trust. Make it a separate aim to not "scratch" Tornado's glory, otherwise we get a second Flying Scotsman story...

Regards,
Vincent, The Netherlands