Tornado

I suspect more to do with the fact that just as they no longer have proper engineering leadership following the removal as a trustee and then premature death of David Elliott, they have no one at board level or in their broader leadership team who understands and can deliver fundraising, marketing or communications.

 

It will make interesting reading to read if not to hot.
The wide steel firebox with forged and welded foundation ring erzatz ,was a tested way to do it in Germany.
So what are the problems?

 

In case you missed the casing ….

 

Rather than allow Meiningen to redesign the firebox / waterspaces/ foundation ring to suit their guideline values and construction methods it was insisted that these should be as close as possible to the original (copper firebox) dims to minimise alterations to the grate/grate area/ ashpan etc.

 

….. and allegedly this resulted in stay length / pattern to be suboptimal for a steel box, leading to excessive stresses and premature failure. Significant numbers of rigid stays have subsequently been replaced by flexible ones, that number increasing at each subsequent repair, with another large tranche done as part of this overhaul. Pictures of the original vs the latest tells the tale (I’ll try and find some).

 

Hindsight is a marvellous thing, So the plan was to put the original boiler at the back of the production line and put a new firebox in it. But it was then moved to the front, but presumably not given one of the new fireboxes from boiler 2 or 3 (even when when needing one was inevitable). Presumably its hoped now to get another 5 years out of it... fingers crossed

 

And with the first new boiler almost complete for so long, it’s still unclear why that decision was made.

 

Here are four comparative images of the evolution of the firebox staying on Tornado’s boiler …

1. As built, shown being fitted in 2007 (note that the loco was operated the following year).



2. As modified at overhaul in 2015 - note additional flexible stays with larger domed heads.



3. Latest iteration with more flexibles added.



4. The yet to be delivered new boiler, now destined for the P2, for comparison with (3) above.



Finally all 4 versions side by side ….. 1&2 above, 3&4 below. (4 mirrored).

 

Interesting, but if boiler #2 is supposedly different internally why does it have exactly the same stay pattern as boiler#1 -For all you so called rivet counters out there shall we have a spot the difference ? now s your time to shine

PS is there a picture of both boilers in the same room at the same time ?

 

I think this has been covered up- thread Al.

The boilers for the new builds have steel inner fireboxes vs copper on the original locos. When the Trust ordered the first boiler back in the noughties it is alleged that they requested the firebox and grate dimensions remain the same, contrary to advice from the supplier. This has never been refuted.

 

If that is the correct explanation it means that the original trustees weren't quite as competent as has been claimed.

 

Correction …

If. I’m sure that if the Trust has a different account they will let us know …

 

Al, even to my totally non-mechanically minded brain that seems a very good question to ask!

 

Thanks for putting those images up. Bulleid made an apposite observation (in the Q&A session on his paper on the MNs to the IMechE), in response to queries as to why he had not used the usual flexible stays:

"There was no reluctance with regard to the fitting of flexible stays; the matter was thoroughly discussed, but owing to difliculties in design in accommodating this type of stay, they had not been fitted. In this connection, the area which should be fitted with flexible stays had not yet been clearly defined. It must be readily apparent to anyone studying fireboxes that, where flexible stays were used, the number fitted had gradually grown. Starting with one row at the top of the firebox sides, fireboxes were now designed which were now almost completely fitted with flexible stays at the sides. This led one to conclude that the area of the plate relieved by fitting flexible stays tended to throw whatever stress it obviously carried on to the adjacent row fitted with rigid stays."

So next overhaul / iteration we may see even more.

 

Whilst this may well of been covered up thread and with 375 pages it would be difficult to locate this BUT in simple terms what advice was not taken on board in the initial design stage? Things that spring to mind are for example larger radius's bend at the corners or differing the distance between inner and outer firebox, whatever . . . . but I would be interested in a simple explanation as looking at all those additional flexible stays now applied does look to this outsider to be in sledgehammer cracks walnut territory.

I'm sorry I gave up on the A1's story when the first boiler issues surfaced many many many moons ago (I too at that time had that feeling over competence of the original team but as the loco was only ever of passing interest to myself I could never fully put my finger on the problems).

 

I wonder if Meiningen said to the A1 Trust something to the effect of - "Ok, you are the customer, we'll do it your way even though we disagree on the design. However, we are not prepared to accept responsibility for any future shortcomings, failures or repair costs."

 

Cost.

The 1st boiler for Tornado cost significantly less than a UK offering with a Copper Firebox, the only contractor that could supply in a timely manner was in germany.
I was told the cost of the 1st boiler by the late David Elliott, on a visit to Hopetown, it did not seem a secret.

Hindsight however......

 

In a conversation with one of Tornados support team ( a fitter) at the NYM it came up that Meiningen view boilers as a ' consumable' and the British practice of rounds of patching up was a bit odd to them...

 

…… continued….

Apologies - I was unable to finish this post due to a combination of poor signal and the forum freezing. I was going to add that one of the key parameters that the supplier wished to vary is believed to be the firebox water space width, their normal steel box design having a wider space, the longer stays required being more flexible. Adhering to the original LNER dimensions may be the cause of the frequent fractures.

This has since been picked up by others.