Tornado

Yep. A1 just smidgeon under 73ft long, BB/WC just a smidgeon under 67.5ft long.

 

That's quite a bit, isn't it?

 

5.5ft.

 

A new appeal by the A1 Trust has been launched:

https://www.a1steam.com/category/news/

Knut

 

Sitting quietly today at Wansford beside two engines in steam: Thomas and 92 Squadron.

 

Am I alone in hoping there would have been more detail presented in what had gone wrong?

 

No your not alone although I'll not hold my breath for much of a public announcement of what the findings of the investigations are & this view is based upon the lack of any real discussion over the original problems with the boiler as an indication of how they operate! I will however also say as an aside I'm not a shareholder (nor am I ever likely to be) so who am I to dictate what they choose to release or not.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

Its up thread that 4 items contributed to the failure, in isolation, it would not have caused the failure, circumstances brought them together, and caused the problem.

 

Not untypically for communications from the Trust, there are some simple editing mistakes: at least one typo ("the left had outside union link") and one duplicated sentence. Small things in themselves, but indicative of carelessness or over-confidence. Some time ago I offered to be one of a pool of proofreaders, but Mark Allatt wanted all or nothing: guaranteed instant availability or they didn't want me.

 

Posted by me, by mistake in the other thread https://www.national-preservation.com/threads/tornado-railtours-2018-and-beyond.1123651/page-11 post #201.

 

The trust has no obligation to tell anyone outside their own organisation, sponsors and Covenanters and their business partners.
They’ve been fairly open throughout this whole process anyway so what more do you want?

 

I hesitate to respond on this, given my personal association as a covenantor and a supporter, but I can't let this go unchallenged. You are inaccurate in what you say about the work on the boiler.

If you care to look through the trust's archives, you will see that at every stage of the process there was an announcement or statement as to the work the boiler required.

https://www.a1steam.com/2011/01/?cat=7

https://www.a1steam.com/2011/01/12/tornados-boiler-an-update/

There's much more evidence besides the above, and there were articles and reports in the railway press at the time together with the trust's online presence. I honestly don't know what other information you would need from it?

There was a lot of debate online about the boiler at the time. I always found the communication with the trust's supporters to be of a very high standard. Naturally, there were some politicisation of the position of returning the boiler to the manufacturer to be rebuilt. The boiler has since been redesigned for the forthcoming P2 based on the experiences found with Tornado.

Let's not repeat the mistakes of the past.

You're entitled to a view but the additional asides and remarks are unnecessary.

Railway preservation has to stop with this sort of behaviour. We might be competitors in business and that's fine, but we are one movement. We should be courteous to everyone in the movement - yes, even those we ultimately disagree with or dislike privately. You never know who you are going to bump into or work with in future, so keeping a calm head and a courteous manner will always stand you in good stead.

 

Ah, that does help.

It was explained at the Convention on Saturday that the failure in April had four contributory causes, any one of which alone would have done no harm. They were: reduced lubrication, slight misalignment of the valve chamber, slight tapering of the liner, and too small gaps in the valve rings. At question time one person from the floor spoke out against any more high speed, but it was reiterated that the rationale for 90 mph running is not speed per se but easier pathing. The implication is that the Trust does still intend to resume 90 mph running sooner or later. The statement soon after the failure that speed was not a cause and that the failure would still have happened at lower speed, but just a bit later, was not reiterated but was implied by the explanation of the four contributory causes.

Adding all that up, it does sound like the trust did do a thorough root cause analysis.

The combination of tolerance stack up on the 3 components and then add in reduced lubrication and that failure becomes a foregone conclusion at any speed.

By the nature of the design you are always going to have a tough time creating a perfect axial alignment and concentric bore.

There is a lot to take in to consideration at the front end, and ample opportunity for small mis-alignments and defects to creep in during manufacture.

 

......... and at the recent annual convention we were shown the brand new measurement tool designed and built by the A1 Trust to ensure the necessary concentricity is achieved in future.

 

I thought long and hard weather to reply to your posting as I have no deep interest in things LNER (well apart from having fired and driven the N2 and a B1 many many moons ago) but I will try and clear things up as to why I made those comments.

There were pages of speculation on NP is over the boiler is easily an indication that the PR issues around the failures were badly handled and even now those recent links you provided tell us very little. The fact that there appear to be no further issues is indeed an indication that at least the problems are now well in the past along with the debate that followed.

Some of us have drawn up specifications for a standard gauge boiler (now I believe being stripped for its next 10yr) and looking at your avatar I wish you well on your apprenticeship in engineering, and my advice from this qualified engineer is to listen before you jump to conclusions. I do happen to think that being open with ones past mistakes is the best way to go and there is too much petty secrecy in the preservation movement which does the movement more harm than good and this comes from my training – if you make a mistake admit it to all, find the cause and then B***dy well get on and fix it.

 

I had a whole spiel prepared - on reflection I don’t think I need to add anything more to Al’s very thoughtful post above, only to say that when I’ve courteously asked for data, they (and others in the railway world) have always been very welcoming to me.

There’s no doubt lessons have been learned and continue to be learned. Our industry would be a much less lively place without the A1 Trust - that is for certain.

 

It has gone very quiet on here recently. Considering there is a tour due to take place next week I might have expected a bit more - even a bit of froth.

Hoping all is coming along and any mainline test runs go well.

 

This any help?

 

Wrong colour !