Discussion in 'Steam Traction' started by Leander's Shovel, Oct 20, 2007.
It's on Youtube
I understand that Tornado has been given the The Coiley Locomotive Engineering Award that the Heritage Railway Association's own publicity says is:
"Awarded to an HRA member who has completed an outstanding engineering project in the field of locomotive overhaul, restoration, or preservation"
The HRA says that it went to Tornado this year for Tornado's certification for 90 mph running. That confuses me as the outstanding engineering project with Tornado was ten years ago when it was built. I'm trying to get my head around what the outstanding engineering project was that took place to secure the 90 mph certificate. Have I missed something?
Don't get me wrong. It was excellent achievement but unless someone tells me differently, all that was needed was a thorough examination and maintenance health check followed by a run up and down the ECML. By contrast, for example, Clun Castle has come back to life after a full overhaul.
Has the HRA lost the plot somewhat?
It appears an award for "outstanding paperwork project" is needed as no doubt it would qualify for that!!
No the HRA have not lost the plot. At least as far as this is concerned. I would suggest that 90 mph didn't just happen. It would be a real engineering project to bring all together to make it happen. Engineering is not just about cutting metal.
Not to mention that overhauls of long dormant locomotives are now - thankfully - not unusual.
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
Perhaps there is some disappointment that a certain Southern show pony didn't win after it's return to the main line down south last summer?
I'm simply observing that the high level testing, assessment and technology that led to what transpired with Tornado is not exactly the same order of scale as, for example, Clun Castle that I mentioned and didn't even get a runner-up award or other 'restorations from scrap' projects.
Clan Line is a show pony? Now you are just being silly.
Agree. It was just the right loco for the wrong reason, in my opinion. Why effectively sideline some brilliant restoration and engineering projects when what you are talking about here is something that is worthy in its own right but not of the scale of other engineering work in restoration. You just have to read the HRA's words to see the mismatch.
I'm genuinely surprised that the criteria for this particular award shot Tornado to the top of the HRA's thinking. It wasn't an imaginative decision but that is not to in any way suggest that Tornado's 90 mph certification was not a great one.
That's the trouble with awards, there's always someone who thinks somebody else should have won.
Of course but in this particular instance, Tornado fails the HRA's own criteria for the award. Perhaps they should look carefully at their award structure to ensure it remains fit for purpose. Obviously an engineering excellence award will still be needed and the Coiley Award does that. But there is probably a need now for an 'Innovation in Technology' award.
Anyway, as you say, there will always be people who will think that the wrong group has been honoured. But I do wonder how the 73156 Standard 5 Group is feeling......
Probably more concerned that their loco is partly dismantled again after all that hard work. Awards are all fine and dandy - we got one for 34081 back in '98 and were well chuffed - but the real buzz comes from achieving your goal whether others award you for it or not.
Loco restorations and overhauls are really run-of-the-mill these days; certainly nothing unusual or pioneering about them. On this basis, 90775, 73156 and 35028 fall into the run-of-the-mill category. The Tornado team certainly achieved something unique (officially, anyhow) in the annals or locomotive preservation. The only argument is that you can say that Tornado is not 'preserved'.
I'm not the greatest fan of Tornado but I am full of admiration for the achievement.
With respect, the 100mph run and 90mph certification was the result of years and years of 'back room' engineering which actually started in earnest on the GCR in 2008 with the track and vehicle dynamic testing conducted there. Since then the A1SLT has been involved in an almost continuous process of acceptance progression with a rolling programme of electronic and cab-signalling upgrades and enhancements as well as an engineering audit of the structures along given routes to ensure that NR was going to be happy with the increased speed. While computer modelling might not be everyone's idea of 'heavy engineering' it is very much part of today's reality - without the recordings made in 2008 on the ECML and Owen Evans' (DeltaRail) ability to blend these with track recordings made by the 'Flying Banana' to produce behaviour predictions the 100mph run would never have been permitted.
Also bear in mind that much of this work was adopted into the computer model for No. 2007, allowing the Trust to make key changes to the chassis design in a controlled computer environment with a certainty that these would form part of the acceptance case when Prince of Wales is presented for the main line for the first time. I appreciate that such work is not dirty or 'sexy' in modern parlance but it will keep steam on the main line for a good few years yet. I doubt Concorde generated half as much paperwork before it was allowed to fly at Mach 1! Take a look at the P2 design page if you want an insight into how this was achieved - https://www.p2steam.com/design-study/
I think those that got Bittern to 90 must be feeling a little bit miffed...
Oh dear, pass the tin opener I fear a can will be opened...
While she was at the NYMR Tornado clocked up her 100,000th mile in traffic, not a bad start to her tenth anniversary year! You can read the story here.
Good news from the A1 Trust FB page .....
"Following the recent issues with the AWS system on Tornado we are pleased to be able to report that the issue has been resolved. As an intermittent fault it was not easy to diagnose, nor had such a fault occurred previously on Tornado or any other locomotive fitted with the same system. We are grateful to Sharpe Engineering Solutions, Locomotive Maintenance Services and Thales for their help in diagnosing the problem.
A minor modification to the electro-pneumatic system has now resolved the issue"
Fuller story here.
Separate names with a comma.