Tornado

Somewhat less than rocket science to weigh those components and add some bricks in the appropriate place. Especially as they probably know what they weigh anyway.

As a general observation I find it the willingness of people to assume incompetence and malice where no evidence exists rather depressing.

Unfortunately it seems a firm rule in the PR industry, professional or volunteer, that no-one is ever allowed to say "Look, **** happens. Live with it."

 

They're only necessary when you come to the final weghing and need to set the springs so that each is carrying its design weight. What is criticalin this case is the clearance (or lack of) between wheels and boiler/anything else when the 'box is at the top of the horns as that is the closest that things will ever get. That actually doesn't need springs to establish.

 

No evidence?

Out of interest, what’s the size of your investment in the loco Jim?


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

Presumably (dangerous phrase I know) the point of interference is not with the boiler per se, but the cladding, which stands proud of the boiler shell. So I wonder if the option was explored simply to reduce the depth of cladding there, ie reduce the thickness of the underlying insulation and adjust the cladding support in that local area so that the cladding is locally tighter to the boiler shell. (Possibly combined with shimming the boiler support brackets to raise the boiler as much as permissible within an acceptable height).

The effect would be to move the cladding radially away from the wheel. That has to be preferable to the alternative of moving the wheels away from the cladding, which is the effect of tyre turning.

Or am I missing something?

Tom

 

I have no connection of any kind, even distant to the Tornado group so far as I know. My primary interests are somewhat to the west. But in point of fact it was a general observation, not one directed at critics of any particular project.

 

I wondered same, though it would look a bit odd, and if formed as a slot might allow water under the cladding with potential firebox corrosion issues.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

Having perused the writings on this subject, have the A1 outfit stated that the wheels were fouling the structure anywhere?

 

Slot in Duchess cladding to clear the lubricator lids.

 

Ok but not subject to driving wheels flinging water and debris off the rail head into there - hence splashes over driving wheels.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

Something else is puzzling me. The first of the much delayed new boilers is due before this year end we were told. Rather than butcher the new tyres, wouldn’t it make more sense to wait a short while and fit the new boiler?

The only reason the old boiler was sent for repair (instead of fitting a new boiler as per the original overhaul plan) was to save time the Trust said. Well that hasn’t worked out well.

I was fully behind the original plan for two new boilers, one for the A1 and the other for the P2, as it gave a cost saving over ordering them separately and also allowed for the old boiler to be rebuilt to the new specification without any time pressure.

Yet here we are …

(ps does anyone know if the tyre turning is completed ? The loco is booked to be at the NR test track before Christmas - for the third time of asking iirc).

 

Probably because they didn't know it wouldn't fit until they fitted it. The cladding had been fitted before the boiler was installed on the frames so to change boilers is no small task, even if you know when the other will turn up? Also would the fit be any better? Meiningen don't come out of this looking good.

There is something odd though. According to the Trust, the boiler arrived at Loughborough at the end of September, the ashpan was immediately fitted and the boiler was installed on the frames. At what stage was the problem first identified?

 

I find Robert Conquest's third law applies well to a great many heritage railway organisations (I've no insider knowledge of the A1 outfit)

 

Given that the loco has got to go back to LMS at Loughborough by road to have the cab , motion, tender etc fitted I can't personally see it getting to the test track before Christmas. Wasn't the original plan for it to have a period of running in at the GCR before going for the ERTMS to be tested? Hence why the support coach is on the GCR , unless it's moved.

As for the delayed boilers, well maybe one will be here by the end of the year or maybe not. Haven't seen any update recently regarding that.

A feeling I have had for a while now is that something is not quite right at the A1 trust since Mark Allatt left. It feels like we covenanters, donators etc are not getting the full information we used to get. I only found out recently that Lauren George, who handled the railtour side of things, had left and so had Lee the office manager. It seems that Lee's replacement has also left and I don't recall seeing any of that mentioned in any communication. There are others that have gone too.

My brother and myself are now seriously thinking about no longer being covenantors.

Dave B

 

Just cutting the foundation ring off wouldn't give the throatplate much opportunity to move. It's held to the inner box via the stays and will be welded to the outer firebox side sheets down the sides.

I can't find any pictures showing what the boiler had done to it, beyond the information that the foundation ring corners were changed, but my suspicion is that they probably replaced the bottom half of the throatplate, and possibly the lower firebox tubeplate at the same time, as well as renewing the foundation ring corners. At this point, if the throatplate repair peice got welded in slightly the wrong place (so it leant forwards compared to how it should fit) it wouldn't necessarily be obvious it was wrong until the boiler was back in the frames.

 

I've been an enthusiastic supporter of the Trust for many years and hesitate to knock someone when they're having problems, but I have similar concerns to the above. The earlier success of the A1 Trust was due to the commitment of a small number of individuals who were outstanding in their own field. The success of the A1 project inspired many of us to dig deep. I have given them a lot more cash than I've given to any other rail project. Think what they have achieved: Tornado is still the only new-build that has operated on the main line; it has travelled at over 100mph. What has changed in recent years? Certainly the environment in which heritage steam operates has become more difficult, but I sense that the A1 Trust has also lost its focus. It no longer seems to value supporters, volunteers, employees, contractors in quite the same way. A loss of focus and failing to value your team seems to me like a leadership issue.

 

I too have had similar feelings, which saddens me: like @Kylchap both I and my business have donated a goodly five-figure sum towards the build of 2007. As I sit here with a dusting of snow outdoors I remember that almost-magical sunny day when a blanket of snow laid on the ground and a huge crowd (I gave up counting after 70) gathered at the footbridge in my old village to witness Tornado's first revenue-earning service; it was seeing that which motivated me to give so generously to the P2.

But something has gone wrong somewhere and I certainly know people who are saying that once they've had their run behind 2007 the cash taps are being turned off, which is a pity as that is the time when engines eat money. I know that as I switch from employment to retirement that some of the standing orders from my bank account for support to various bodies will need to be looked at in detail.

 

I’m heartened by the last few posts above as I was beginning to feel like a voice in the wilderness.

As a 20 year investor in Tornado, a P2 Founder, Covenantor and parts buyer and occasional volunteer I am greatly saddened by the fall in capabilities from those halcyon days to current mess we find ourselves in.

The key factor coincidental with this appears to have been changes at the top and a reluctance to maintain open relations with both supporters and tour customers.

Recent board resignations and the unusually high turnover of administrative staff suggest that all is not well.

As a pensioner now, my contributions are also under review, as is my legacy …..

Here are the most recent pronouncements by the Trust ….

24th Oct - loco is scheduled for an ‘Autumn return’.

9th Nov. “After two long years of overhaul activity, The Trust now looks forward to seeing No. 60163 Tornado in steam as the locomotive goes for running in and ETCS testing at the RIDC test centre before Christmas”.

Meanwhile she sits at Toton, as seen this weekend on FB …..



You can see the firebox clearly sat on its slides, so it must be a cladding issue I’d say.




Over to you A1SLT …..

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

A friend of mine - uncharitably - said that in his view the relationship had deteriorated to the level of "just shut up and give us your money".

When things went very wrong on the Ebor Flyer and Tornado sat at Wansford for an extended period I did encounter David Elliott in the café there. I think I bought them all hot drinks but I really wished I could have pressed him more on what went wrong. However, I am saddened that what was once a raison d'etre for Tornado's existence - an ability to fit in better with an ever-faster Big Railway - is unlikely to happen again, notwithstanding the peculiar ruling that whilst it's okay for a Deltic to pull Mk. 1s at 100mph, a steam engine can only haul them at 75mph. (An explanation for this anomaly would be welcomed by this baffled old git.)

 

Yes, perhaps we should just replace Col SD MBE with Sir Bob Geldof?

 

I'm sorry, but am I missing something...we don't know yet, what the problem was? I'm concerned at the turnover of staff mentioned here, what are the reasons?...this causes discontinuty and problems arise. I'm trying to take an impartial view BTW