Tornado

I don't think that required the driving wheels turning down.
The change to injectors is another unexplained item.

This is my point, we have had a lost of things that took longer than expected, but no coherent narrative as to why the job overall took 12 months longer than expected.

This is my concern. There are always things that go to plan and things that don't, but that doesn't say what the delay was. Eg, if the tender took 12 months longer than expected because they lost a wheelset down the back of the sofa, but they were waiting 14 months for an ETRMS widget, the tender hasn't delayed the job at all. OTOH, if the ETRMS widget was a week late, and the tender is 14 months late, the ETRMS widget is still late, but it hasn't delayed the job. But you can still put out a press release saying the ETRMS is late...

 

In addition to the first moves on shed yesterday, I’m told by a fellow GCR volunteer who popped into Loughborough yesterday that the first bits of mileage accumulation have begun with a short run up to Quorn and back.

 

Was that the cause of the boiler not fitting correctly and the subsequent turning down of the tyres?

 

It's not actually been explained fully by the trust, but it looks like there was some distortion of the platework possibly caused by welding repairs to that section of boiler, or it was already distorted, and fitting of new tyres, made it more apparent, leading to the tyres having to be turned down further, thus loosing 3 years of life in them, I actually think, it may have been already there, the plate was deformed by heating, and cooling cycles, Steel fireboxes have a on average 10 year life, and tornado's must have been coming towards the 10 year mark. ideally, the entire firebox should have been replaced, not patched up, as is the way germany treat their steel fireboxes.

 

There was not many flexible stay head covers on the the first version?
After each trip to Germany there was more and more .
Se post with pictures from Sheff 18 june.
Letter 7487

 

You clearly ‘get’ this Mike - I guess we come from similar engineering project backgrounds.
Your earlier comment about the project’s ‘Critical Path’ reminded me of something that I had been ruminating on.

Back in the ‘good old days’ of openness and technical competence, a highlight for me at the Annual Convention would be David Elliott describing work done over the previous year, but even more so, what was planned for the next year. In the early years this involved the construction of the A1, but then later it might be an overhaul, then the construction of the P2.

Invariably this included his critical path chart up on the screen, pinch points highlighted, with explanations of any known delayed steps, and how he would re-jig the programme to compensate where possible, and if not, how this would affect the completion date.

Proper engineering. Compare and contrast.

 

If your steel firebox only lasts 10 years then you need to think a bit harder about what you're doing with it. One of the locos I drive has had a steel firebox that has 50 years hard service on it. It is probably just now coming up to renewal time.

At A1 scale fitting a new firebox is an expensive business which is why most large loco boilers are a patchwork quilt now.

 

And the decision not to fit a new boiler as planned and fundraised for?

 

Observation says inner steel fireboxes don’t last quite as well as copper. 30 years or three cycles seems to be achievable quite usually though, and often a lot longer albeit with some patches. Water quality is essential though. Steel wears less well if the water is at all iffy and it’s more prone to issues with scale build up I think. All that seems very logical to me when I think about the behaviour of the two metals.

Mainline engines suffer more variety of water quality than heritage line only locos (even those that travel). In the case of the A1, it feels like some of the internal spaces might also be more restricted than is ideal. Poor circulation would cause localised hot spots. I don’t know if this is a characteristic of the design, the conversion of the design from a copper inner to a steel inner or some fault in manufacturing. Maybe all three? I do wonder what those in charge know that perhaps hasn’t been shared publicly. ( that’s not a criticism, just that I wouldn’t know what they may not have justifiably not shared ).

 

At the time it was manufactured, I did read somewhere that a boilersmith, looked at the boiler, methods of construction, and was of the opinion, they would be lucky to get ten years out of it, It since then has had several changes over how it was first made, an increase of flexible staying for one, the German manufacturer also had a few concerns, mostly over British requirements, over how they did things in Germany.

 

It is widely claimed that the Trust instructed Germany to build the steel box to the original LNER dimensions as this was a proven design, whereas the manufacturer’s standard is to use wider water spaces, featuring longer stays so giving more flexibility. This would result in a slightly reduced grate area, but I doubt that would be very different significant given its already prodigious steaming capacity.

I also believe the two new boilers incorporate this wider space and that the original boiler was to be rebuilt the same way had this gone ahead, so all three would have a common grate layout.

Again this brings into question the Trust’s decision not to wait for the new boiler that was due for the overhaul, as it appears that the original will still require rebuilding in the future to match the new spec?

 

https://www.facebook.com/share/v/DADVPjximE6VPQQY/

 

So people on here know tornado has been doing light engines runs throughout the day to Quorn and rothley on the GCR

 

Good to see Andy Morgan in the seat and getting the recognition he deserves having done the lion’s share of the work at LMS.

Incidentally it’s noticeable that neither this video, nor the previous one of the steam test, feature the Chairman taking the plaudits although he was on site. A refreshing change.

 

Wonderful to hear that sound again!

 

Not running today(Sunday ) ,photo'd out side Loughborough' shed.

 

It has always surprised me that systems such as TIA are not used on preserved locomotives. Not only would this prevent scale being formed but it would increase boiler efficiency by about 20%. Once installed, all you have to do is keep the reservoir topped up and ensure that the system is air-tight. Locomotives with TIA in France ran for up to a million kilometers without intervention. Even if a boiler is dry, if it has scale in it, particularly if the scale includes chlorides, the boiler will be corroding. A few years ago I remember cutting up the old boiler barrel of Trojan at Didcot. Everywhere where there was scale there was heavy corrosion. It was cut up because I put a punch through the bottom of the barrel; it couldn't have been like that when it was last steamed!

 

I think that many preserved locomotives do get high quality water. On the GCR there is a Reverse Osmosis plant underground close to the water tower at Loughborough.

 

I think you may be out of touch with current practice in the heritage steam world. Water treatment is widely used particularly with steel fireboxes. It was cut up because I put a punch through the bottom of the barrel; it couldn't have been like that when it was last steamed Oh yes it could have! But you are correct in your assertion about dry corrosion.