Tornado

Can't see that unless there is a problem with the big end journal, Definitely overkill.

 

I stand corrected re the crane!

 

Completely disagree with that statement.

• This is an internet discussion forum, things get discussed, speculation happens - that is the point of an internet discussion forum.
• As per helpful, a forum like this is not meant to be helpful, I doubt the A1ST were even remotely looking to get engineering advice on here from us. What you really meant to say was that was that in your opinion it was damaging. To whom I am not quite sure, but as anyone who matters won't take any notice of the engineering speculation on here it makes not a jot of difference helpful or not.
• As far as stopping speculation and comment, you made yours, which is fair enough thats the point of this place, you can't however wish that everyone else stops theirs.

Given that we can all start speculating on why the lubricationing whatnotthingy failed.

 

Inclined to agree. The whole point of this forum is idle chit chat and information about goings on. It hardly bills itself as an Engineering consultancy and nor should it!

We are all deeply sympathetic, but also curious. Nothing, (apart from that stupid Tonka moniker!) has been said that is defamatory or derogatory here, so why are some so defensive?

Its understandable this is a sensitive subject for the owners and stakeholders, but personally speaking, Id rather put my own skill set towards challenging technical assumptions on here, than letting information go unchallenged. Everyone benefits from a robust technical discussion. The learned and the learning.

The A1 Trust are clearly directing the PR machine, by being open and transparent. Everyone accepts they are the authority on this. Whats the harm?

 

the guys who will have the job of investigating what happened and putting her back together again, will have enough on their plates without the " helpful" observations of some on here, how about we get them get on with it?
are the trust likely to have spare forgings of the damaged parts , I am guessing that the P2 uses the Gresley set up?

 

Insufficient lubrication can cause big problems at even at 25 mph on heritage railways. If something seizes, other things break even at low speed so no, 90 mph is not necessarily an issue.

 

No worries Sheff. We all have different fields of expertise.

 

Actually, I respectfully disagree with both @W.Williams and @mrKnowwun on this. For some of us, a forum like this is also a place to gain some insights, and too much discussion creates disproportionate noise that is difficult to cut through. In amongst the assembled expertise, there had been no mention of lubrication as a potential issue until it was associated with a UK Railtours email (i.e. with a level of official sanction), but a great deal of speculation, some of it from people seemingly determined to find that the issue was directly speed related.

 

And thats the point, those erstwhile people probably haven't even read the helpful comments on here, probably haven't had time, and if they did it would not make the slightest difference to their task, so all they have on their plates is the investigation and putting it right.

 

I can't see a single post anywhere in this tale on this forum that blames speed.

 

Funny, I saw several on the various threads related to last Saturday that pointed very firmly in that direction.

 

As Ian posted , a lubrication problem can occur at any speed, and the end result is always the same, the problem will be in finding what caused the loss of lubrication it can be anything, debris in the oil flow blocking the feed, to a mechanical problem with the lubricator its self, its possible that they may not find anything at fault on the lubrication .

 

Mechanically, Tornado has much more in common with an A2 such as Blue Peter.

 

This sounds suspiciously like speculation, something a certain moderator has warned us against.

 

He did, and I accept the advice of those with significantly more knowledge than I of the likely consequences of a lubrication failure. The cause of that failure will of course also be interesting.

 

Perhaps a naive question, but would it be possible/practical/useful to have some sort of overheat detection on critical components?

I know some LNER locos had "stink bombs" on their middle big end, or similar, but these days, I'd have thought electronic temperature monitoring sensors on or near key bearings or moving parts could be installed relatively easily, with some sort of warning panel or light in the cab, with more detail perhaps displayed in the POB.

 

Which particular critical component did you have in mind? There are twenty axleboxes on there to start with, eight coupling rod joints, six big and little ends, three piston rods and another three valve spindles, crossheads, slidebars, motion pins, one eccentric and two return cranks. And how do you attach these to space-critical components rotating at seven revolutions per second and liberally covered with oil?

 

Those will do for starters

Seriously though, thanks for the considered response, which I realise is from someone with plenty of real life experience of these matters rather than my years of armchair pontification

My thoughts were that perhaps they could be set into certain components, and given that steel conducts heat reasonably well, maybe one sensor in a strategic place could detect temperature changes in several parts of a major component.

I realise it may well be totally impractical, it was just an idea which sprang to mind for some reason..

 

the problem is, you will end up with a battery of warning lights and buzzers in the cab, drivers have enough to watch out for on the mainline something like a stink bomb is tested and tried, I think this was a one off situation, remote monitoring from the support coach may be possible, but your talking putting sensors in the worse possible place for them, vibration, heat, moving objects ,

 

Respectfully, I'd like to counter. Both myself and Steve suggested this failure was a symptom of something stopping. The inference being the root cause is seizure. A lack of oil.

Further, I explicitly stated it was unlikely to be speed related, as if the above was correct, seizure that is (incidentally it was) then the resulting failure could have happened "at any speed above dead zero." My own conclusion was fast fracture. Looks like my conjecture was actually correct.

My own post was directed at someone suggesting the inside gear was covered with "melted metal" and I'm not going to apologize for setting that little misconception straight.

Your thesis here isn't quiet right either. If you want official news, go to the source. This is a place known for speculation and conjecture, wading through it is the whole point of being here isn't it?

I accept some were quick to point to speed as the cause, but wouldn't you rather those suggestions were countered by those better qualified to comment, therefore adding to the discussion and steering it in a better direction?