Tornado

Yes, shown on the Winter 2022 edition of TCC, same time as Mark also left.

 

Things could get serious for the Trust over this. Their business model requires a hefty monthly income stream from covenanters just to meet what is a huge salary bill for such an operation. I can’t be the only one thinking of throwing in the towel so they need to get their act together quickly, it takes a lot of effort to get people to part with their money and get on board but it takes even more to bring them back when they have left.

 

I also work around projects. Having been on one or two that have hit issues, my experience is that those that keep communicating when things are a bit off do a lot better than those that only deliver good news.

 

Yes, being honest and straight with stakeholders is far better than pretending the world is perfect. People appreciate you being straight with them and more often than not, they already know something is up.

 

Absolutely that.

Having spent my 35 years of working life in engineering development, design, planning, procurement and project management I know a little about what I speak. It covers a lot more than seeking out contractors to do the work and then letting them get on with it, as others such as the unfortunate Patriot group found out to their cost.

Yes the Trust performed at a the highest level to produce Tornado, and the funding model that provided for this. That is what attracted me in the first place, and led me to become a Covenantor and then P2 Founder and component sponsor, plus V4 founder in waiting. Also hands on volunteer and friend to some.

However that was then. Organisations change, key players come and go for various reasons and sometimes the ethos can change too. As an engineer apart from the technical skill, it’s also important to maintain a sharp focus on your suppliers, and indeed your colleagues - anyone can make mistakes but you’ve got to be alert. You need to have the integrity to hold your hand up and admit there’s a problem and correct these before they have any significant impact. Always be open and honest with your clients, a little pain at the time can save a whole lot of acrimony later. (and let’s not forget that for the Trust, its Covenantors, supporters and passengers ARE its clients).

As an example let’s take the three sets of new tubes used in the boiler refurb …. How did the first set fail on quality? This was only discovered on its return to the UK, having apparently passed the hydraulic test in Germany. Why hadn’t the body that rejected them (the Trust’s insurance inspectors presumably) out in Germany to check the quality before they were fitted, and to check a specimen tube fitment for weld quality etc? This would be the norm in my project experience (which included Europe etc).

As for the second set failing too, I really struggle to understand how that can happen. Let’s hope it’s third time lucky, but luck should play no part there.

I could go on and on, but I’ll leave it there. Yes it would be good to get more answers, but recent form suggests they’ll just lead to more questions. I’ve tried pinning the Trustees down at the last two or three Conventions, but the answers have been sketchy, and I’ve received no support from the room - typical comment on bus to DLW “why does the Q&A go on for so long, why don’t they shut up so we can go and see the loco sooner, I wonder what colour it will be?” Okay, I made the colour comment up, but you get my drift.

So take off those rose-tinted specs and let’s have some proper critical discussion on here …. Please.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

Agreed John,

All my serious money has gone to the Trust in the past, but I’ve not donated any one off payments to them in the last few years since I lost faith in the management. It’s very disappointing as I was thrilled at the prospect of the re-creation of the P2 and the new boilers (and ultimately the V4 ).

But there are other fish in the sea that I now believe would make better use of my hard earned ….. and of course many of us are edging towards ‘legacy’ time ….


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

Meanwhile.........

We are pleased to confirm all the welding on Tornado’s boiler is complete. Tube expansion, weld dressing and other preparation ahead of the hydraulic test is now well underway.


(4) Facebook

 

We are pleased to report that Tornado’s boiler has passed its hydraulic test in the presence of the boiler inspector. Preparations are now underway for a steam test next week.

 

Good news about the boiler!

 

Those who are, shall we say, animated, by recent events, take heart.

Far more egregious things go on in all manner of engineering aspects that touch your day to day life, that you will never ever know about.

So they had to cut a set of tubes out... twice.

I can't say that perturbs me much, especially given the admirable track record demonstrated by the A1 trust so far.

Isnt half the love of these machines related to the shear drama of them? This only adds colour to the canvas.

 

Stares off in Well There's Your Problem podcast.

 

By the end of next week, an A1 and an A2 will be boiler in frames, on the finishing straight to mainline running again.

One with ETRMS, the other a standard approach.

Which one wins the race to the head of a rake of stock????

 

Yes, but the A2's boiler is only temporary.

 

temporary????

 

Now passed it's steam test...onwards and upwards...

 

Tornado Details | News | Tornado | A1 Locomotives (a1steam.com)

12 month certificate????

 

Aren't they 12 month anyway? I thought the '10 year boiler ticket' was a bit of a myth.

Sent from my moto g(7) play using Tapatalk

 

Don't they need a boiler inspector's visit each year?

 

Most certificates are 12 month only, the 10 year one is a myth. 10 years is the maximum amount of time between boiler lifts I believe (but even this can be flexible if the boiler inspector is happy), it is made up of intermediate 12 month inspections.
I think 43106 on the SVR is effectively in year 14 now, but is on light duties!
No doubt someone will correct any inaccuracies!

 

I think that 10 years is the maximum time between a full retube and ultraonic test if the boiler, checking all of the stays etc. I don’t think it’s always necessary to lift the boiler if the inspector is happy that he is able to access all areas without doing so. I now stand to be corrected