Tornado fails on ECML

[PaulRhB]

I don't think he means he doesn't believe it

They publicly did the tests of the engineering to know its capable at that speed. They are just stamping on that speculation quickly showing confidence in their engineering with the tests to prove it from the 100mph run.

Edited April 15, 2018 by PaulRhB

[Zomboid]

More accurate would be that it's not presently thought to be speed related. Definitive information one way or the other will come in the report, if there is to be one.

[royaloak]

If it was speed related they would not say that as it would be found out later. Thetefore I believe them that it was not speed related.

Where have they said it is not speed related?

 

What I have seen is they have said they dont believe it to be speed related which has quite a different meaning.

 

The devil, as always, is in the detail!

Edited April 15, 2018 by royaloak

[PhilH]

I post this for interest only, certainly not to start any argument or discussion pro/ con 90mph running. I am a facebook 'friend' with a few of the DBC guys who drive and fire mainline steam and others associated with mainline running. In a discussion on fb PRIOR to the incident this is what loco owner and engineer Ian Riley had to say about mainline speeds.

 

'75 mph is quite fast enough for a steam loco.....well to the intelligent..;)'

 

As I say, for interest only...

[Grovenor]

Looks as though the RAIB may be taking a bit of an interest in this one:

 

https://twitter.com/IanProsser7/status/985581579215998978

Ian Prosser is not RAIB, he is ORR.

Regards

[60159]

So much conjecture, so little fact!

[roythebus]

I am grateful to my loyal fans here....

 

Steel yourself for more...while they iron out the problems.

[roythebus]

I post this for interest only, certainly not to start any argument or discussion pro/ con 90mph running. I am a facebook 'friend' with a few of the DBC guys who drive and fire mainline steam and others associated with mainline running. In a discussion on fb PRIOR to the incident this is what loco owner and engineer Ian Riley had to say about mainline speeds.

 

'75 mph is quite fast enough for a steam loco.....well to the intelligent..;)'

 

As I say, for interest only...

 

Tell that to Sir Nigel Gresley.

[Steamport Southport]

Where's the groan button?

 

 

I was only pointing out parts of the engine were over twenty years old. I don't know whether those parts are cast, forged or "genuine articles guv". 

 

 

 

"I only ride ’em, I don’t know what makes ’em work. Woof! Woof!!"   

  

 

 

 

Jason

[PatB]

I'd be quite surprised if a component made from a (I assume) not especially exotic steel would degrade to any measurable extent simply through ageing, without being subjected to its working loads. Non ferrous alloys are a different teapot of eels, but that doesn't seem relevant here.

[rodent279]

I'd be quite surprised if a component made from a (I assume) not especially exotic steel would degrade to any measurable extent simply through ageing, without being subjected to its working loads. Non ferrous alloys are a different teapot of eels, but that doesn't seem relevant here.

If whatever happened was purely down to the age of the metal, forged, cast or otherwise, you'd expect preserved (as in original 60+year old machines) locos to be dropping like flies.

Edited April 16, 2018 by rodent279

[uax6]

I would expect that the failure is more likely the loss of lubrication, which precipitated the failure of the large chunky bits of metal, I doubt that there would be any flaws in the forgings, as I expect that flaw detection would have to be used in construction....

 

Mind you time will tell..

 

Andy G

Edited April 16, 2018 by uax6

[Barry O]

I always like the words used by some about issues such as this. From my (non Railway related) Engineering viewpoint until it has all been properly reviewed I wouldn't even try to guess or conjecture on what happened.

As for Mr Riley...is that why Flying Scotsman is driven with a lot of care?

 

Baz

[Neil]

Railway replacement buses can't do 90mph is the simple answer.

 

I've been on a bus on the Spanish motorway replacing the TGV service from Figueres to Barcelona which wouldn't have been that far off .

[Andrew Young]

There’s some irony, that following Tornado’s failure at 90mph, the replacement Loco, a class 66 would’ve limited onward travel to 75mph. Such is progress...

 

Andrew

[Titan]

There’s some irony, that following Tornado’s failure at 90mph, the replacement Loco, a class 66 would’ve limited onward travel to 75mph. Such is progress...

 

Andrew

 

And how many 9F's did 75mph as often as a 66, let alone 90mph as often as an A1?  Perhaps if you were to compare apples with apples - e.g. an A1 with a 67 or 68....

Edited April 16, 2018 by Titan

[cal.n]

The way 90mph running was always pitched by DBC was that it would to avoid delays. If you look at the RTT, it was actually pathed at 75mph, but authorised for 90.

 

My understanding was always that, in the future, the ability to run at 90 was mainly to be used to recover time if delayed, because even if other trains around it are just traveling 75, any small delay, combined with the lack of acceleration compared to today’s units, would mean a 75mph running train could easy fall behind, especially on paths in and out of London.

 

Similarly, Transpennine Express class 350/4s are pathed for 100mph, but are authorised for 110mph if it is more that 10mins late.

[caradoc]

So presumably the 'train struck an object' allegation has now been discounted ?

Edited April 16, 2018 by caradoc

[Mallard60022]

And how many 9F's did 75mph as often as a 66, let alone 90mph as often as an A1?  Perhaps if you were to compare apples with apples - e.g. an A1 with a 67 or 68....

Oh let's just forget this niggle niggle stuff and speculation. It's getting really handbaggage comment. 

FFS 9Fs were running in the 60s when 'things' were very different and they were freight locos with quite old rolling stock. Their passenger use was really limited and not as an experiment to see how fast they could go.

In steam days the expectation was that trains ran to time wherever possible and the timetable reflected the limitations placed upon the locomotives available. 'Going for it'  on 'fast lines' only happened in the last months of steam on the SR and was not sanctioned by the 'management'.

Phil

[Titan]

Oh let's just forget this niggle niggle stuff and speculation. It's getting really handbaggage comment. 

FFS 9Fs were running in the 60s when 'things' were very different and they were freight locos with quite old rolling stock. Their passenger use was really limited and not as an experiment to see how fast they could go.

In steam days the expectation was that trains ran to time wherever possible and the timetable reflected the limitations placed upon the locomotives available. 'Going for it'  on 'fast lines' only happened in the last months of steam on the SR and was not sanctioned by the 'management'.

Phil

 

That was exactly my point....

[kevinlms]

There’s some irony, that following Tornado’s failure at 90mph, the replacement Loco, a class 66 would’ve limited onward travel to 75mph. Such is progress...

 

Andrew

Trains are built for a specific purpose, not on the basis it must be faster or somehow better than last year's model. Generally they are designed to last at least 25 years in service.

[PhilH]

Tell that to Sir Nigel Gresley.

I think Riley's quote was in the context of modern day mainline steam running where you can't just whistle up another engine, and maintenance and repair facilities are few and far between...as are personnel to carry out these tasks.

 

So while these things are capable of running at 90mph and more, just as in steam days maintenance requirements, wear and likelihood of breakdown is increased by running at these speeds. 75mph seems to be the 'sweet spot' for sustained running.

Edited April 16, 2018 by PhilH

[Andrew Young]

And how many 9F's did 75mph as often as a 66, let alone 90mph as often as an A1? Perhaps if you were to compare apples with apples - e.g. an A1 with a 67 or 68....

Sorry, will hold up my ‘sarcasm’ sign next time...

 

Andrew

[Oldddudders]

I think Riley's quote was in the context of modern day mainline steam running where you can't just whistle up another engine, and maintenance and repair facilities are few and far between...as are personnel to carry out these tasks.

 

So while these things are capable of running at 90mph and more, just as in steam days maintenance requirements, wear and likelihood of breakdown is increased by running at these speeds. 75mph seems to be the 'sweet spot' for sustained running.

 

Important point, Phil. Just as knowledge on infrastructure and operations was lost in the transition from BR to Railtrack to Network Rail, so the century of continuous steam loco development and resulting wide knowledge-base that enabled Mallard to do her sensational turn all those years ago (which still, I believe, left the poor thing with a bit of a headache) rather dissipated in the years after 1968. I am certain Tornado's owners have retained the best and most capable resources on every aspect of design and maintenance, but the minutiae of high-speed steam running and the specific maintenance issues arising therefrom are no longer in the commonplace. Experience has been lost. It is to be hoped that the engineers and metallurgists will indeed find a simple cause that enables this popular loco to be back on track soonest, but I'm not holding my breath. 

[Nearholmer]

Uax

 

You’d think that from what looks like sustained overheating, but there are alternative explanations as to how overheating can occur, and even “loss of lubrication” isn’t a root cause, it is an intermediate event that may have multiple different underlying causes.

 

As I said earlier, lots of detective work needed.

 

Kevin