Discussion in 'Steam Traction' started by Leander's Shovel, Oct 20, 2007.
I'll get your coat for you Tom...
And his hat please. After that one I am not sure Tom will be returning
Will a castle boiler fit on that contraption?
Asking for a friend......
The better solution may have been to delay until the boiler for the p2 was ready, and then have fitted that, assuming that the boiler also won't have the same issues, then cut out the corners and throat plate fit in new sections,this time ensuring nothing moves from where its meant to be, and fit that boiler onto the P2,
Don’t put ideas into heads…
Not much fun for the fireman on that, and the inevitable rebuild is going to struggle under overhead wires I’d imagine…
The is the A1 Steam Locomotive Trust's explanation:
'The locomotive has had new tyres fitted during this overhaul, and they are at maximum size. With Tornado’s boiler now fitted, we better understand the clearances needed and can turn the tyres to our exact requirement to minimise wastage. To ensure safe and reliable operation, the tyres will be turned to size before the locomotive returns to LMS for the installation of the cab, now complete with all ETCS modifications, the heavy motion which is ready to fit, and the remaining small fittings and pipe work.'
So was this apparent when 60163 was first built?
Quite. Was it on full size tyres when new? Or is there a strong whiff of bovine excrement emanating from Darlington?
Tolerances are a funny thing. I remember one of the aircraft engineers I worked with a lot telling me no two B747's in our fleet were the same and one was considerably longer than the others.
Every time we did an interiors mod there were things that did not fit on one aircraft that did on most others. The engineers had something called a DDA pad (Design Deviation Authority) to allow things to fit by "minor modification". Obviously far easier to do with some interiors plastics and fibrelam than large hunks of metal.
I have little, tending very much towards ‘no’ doubt it’s the latter.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Could it be that with the tyres as first machined that they lifted Tornado above the maximum permitted height?
But if so, why wasn't that the case when first built?
Somewhere along the lines, a loco that once worked with 6'8" wheels now seemingly doesn't, and they have to be turned down. That's bound to raise the odd quizzical eyebrow.
[Edit: 6'9" --> 6'8". It doesn't change the sentiment of the post]
They could always pop a nice set of 6'2 ones in.....nearly an A2?
The driving wheel OD is 6’ 8” and has always been so, be it 1949, 2008, or the last time she was re-tyred (I can’t recall if she’s be retyred before, but suspect she probably has).
The latest tyres went on at SDR in 2021 and were then skimmed to the correct size and profile. They have since sat at LMS In Loughborough for over a year, awaiting the completion of the work on the frames.
So plenty of opportunity to check the dimensions (in case this wasn’t done at SDR or on receipt).
IMHO the ONLY degree of freedom in this equation is the boiler, ie firebox, which has had an unspecified amount of work done to it.
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
If I remember when the engine was rewheeled, no problems were found, so it has to be the boiler, and work done to the firebox, I'm not a boilersmith, but i do know about heating and cooling cycles,
I have a question, On a steel firebox, do you need to fit extra supports when you remove a foundation ring leaving the throatplate, unsecured, let's say, for example the foundation ring is removed to replace corners and the material which would have been at this point free to expand out of shape, if not held down, when the boiler is rebuilt would the distortion have been noticed?
Am I the only one who is surprised that the loco needed a new set of tyres after such a short life? What mileage did they get out of the first set of tyres?
Have the springs been set correctly?
I wondered that. However - consider the cost of what they are doing. The direct "cash out the door now" cost of a double lorry move + preparing the loco + the actual contract to turn the tyres probably runs into the lowish five figures. The indirect "will be paid for in reduced life" cost of wasted mileage by cutting the expected lifetime of this set of tyres probably runs to a rather larger five figure cost. So you wouldn't embark on that plan of action unless all cheaper alternatives had been explored and rejected - surely that would include a very careful check that you had set the springs up correctly. (Or, if that hadn't been considered and eliminated - then in a way that is even more damning!)
Looking at the photos, it has no cab, blinkers, chimney and, presumably, blastpipe, so it could not have been weighed and the springs set. What a mess!
Separate names with a comma.