Jump to content

Recommended Posts

 Ah, A3s on two cylinders. Back to three cylinder locomotive failures thank the Lord!

I have a personal interest in all this. The missus, self, and another couple were supposed to be on the Ynys Mon Express last Saturday, with rides on the Festiniog, WHR and two buses plus some cakes. And I'm a Tornado covenantor! I have every confidence in Messrs Allatt, Bunker-James, and the rest of the A1SLT. The trip has been rescheduled for 29th September so things are looking a bit brighter.

I can only echo somebody earlier in the thread - "Give us some money!" I mean, the P2 isn't ready yet so we're a bit stuck........ :scratchhead: 
 

Link to post
Share on other sites

I see no cause for alarm , it is after all a simple engineering issue , either the trust will demonstrate to NRs satisfaction that the incident was not a function of high speed running , or if it was , it is now fixed in such a way as to not be an issue in the future , or they will not secure NRs satisfaction

 

NRs subsequent decision is then fairly simple one way or the other, one can hardly expect NR to ignore the issue ( high speed steam ) if it transpires there is a pertinent engineering issue.

 

I do think , personally , unless you engineer with modern methods, materials and techniques , it’s rather ridiculous to expect a replica of early 20 engineering to “ emulate “ sustained running speeds inexcess of that typically demonstrated historically

Edited by Junctionmad
Link to post
Share on other sites

If, when they took it apart, there wasn't a trace of the lubricant that they'd normally expect to find then it would be a very safe bet it wasn't speed related. Similarly if there was no oil in the immediate feed.

 

Yes, but unless I missed something, I don't think that's what they said.

 

I think it's great that Tornado is allowed to run on UK main-lines, but like it or not, if it's going to do that it has to comply with 21st Century rules. I just don't want to see Tornado shut-down because the A1 Trust sent out a premature message. We have more than enough "spin-doctors" (and don't I know it).

Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, but unless I missed something, I don't think that's what they said.

 

I think it's great that Tornado is allowed to run on UK main-lines, but like it or not, if it's going to do that it has to comply with 21st Century rules. I just don't want to see Tornado shut-down because the A1 Trust sent out a premature message. We have more than enough "spin-doctors" (and don't I know it).

To avoid you adding to the spin , what evidence do you have to suggest the statement was premature. Because if you have none , you are engaging in an activity that you have lambasted others for

 

Equally , why would you see “ tornado shut down “ as a result of the messsge from the trust. One presumes the trust knows precisely ( or reasonably precisely ) what happened. NR is unlikely to be swayed one way or the other by a mere statement , one presumes it will evaluate at an engineering level what the trust says was the issue and its rectification

Edited by Junctionmad
Link to post
Share on other sites

To avoid you adding to the spin , what evidence do you have to suggest the statement was premature. Because if you have none , you are engaging in an activity that you have lambasted others for

 

Equally , why would you see “ tornado shut down “ as a result of the messsge from the trust. One presumes the trust knows precisely ( or reasonably precisely ) what happened. NR is unlikely to be swayed one way or the other by a mere statement , one presumes it will evaluate at an engineering level what the trust says was the issue and its rectification

 

Crikey!

Link to post
Share on other sites

To avoid doubt here’s the relevant piece from the trust

 

“ On Sunday 15th April, in the presence of one of DB Cargo’s appointed independent steam locomotive examiners, a thorough pit inspection and strip-down of the immediately affected components was undertaken. What we know so far is that the front valve on the middle valve spindle seized in the valve liner. This caused significant stresses to the combination lever which failed, causing the loss of the lower part of it, allowing it and the union link to flail which in turn caused the lower part of the drop link to separate from the crosshead. This is almost certainly due to a lubrication failure in that area, although the exact cause of such a failure is not known at the present time and investigations continue in this area. We are also examining all components and reviewing all relevant records and design and installation drawings. The nature of the failure suggests that even at 75mph the incident would have occurred. All damage thereafter is consequential and would readily explain how parts of the inside valve gear became detached in the manner they did.

 

I don’t see anything “ premature “ in fact I see a reasonable statement of the facts at hand and a reasonable approach to this

Link to post
Share on other sites

"The nature of the failure suggests that even at 75mph the incident would have occurred." (My bold.)

 

My only point is that the A1 Trust might have been better, absent hard data, to have avoided suggesting anything. Sorry if that's got you all wound-up.

Link to post
Share on other sites

"The nature of the failure suggests that even at 75mph the incident would have occurred." (My bold.)

 

My only point is that the A1 Trust might have been better, absent hard data, to have avoided suggesting anything. Sorry if that's got you all wound-up.

Again you assume data not presented is not there , personally I would presume the people looking at the issue are qualified to do so and therefor their opinion holds weight. The statement is entirely consistent with the trust attempting to address rather idle speculation that the particular high speed was the cause of the issue.

 

They have discounted that. Unless someone here has alternative contradictory hard facts , why second guess them

Link to post
Share on other sites

They have discounted that. Unless someone here has alternative contradictory hard facts , why second guess them

 

For no other reason that they have an obvious vested interest. Again, my only point was that it might have been in their better interests to have said nothing about speed at all. Time will tell if  speed had anything to do with the failure but by attempting to deflect the question they only made it look (to me) that they were not exactly impartial.

 

As the A1 Trust has now turned over the investigation to a third party what they may, or may not have, discounted is of no consequence. I'm as interested in seeing Tornado run again as anyone. I'm just not interested in sweeping anything under a rug.

Link to post
Share on other sites

For no other reason that they have an obvious vested interest. Again, my only point was that it might have been in their better interests to have said nothing about speed at all. Time will tell if  speed had anything to do with the failure but by attempting to deflect the question they only made it look (to me) that they were not exactly impartial.

 

As the A1 Trust has now turned over the investigation to a third party what they may, or may not have, discounted is of no consequence. I'm as interested in seeing Tornado run again as anyone. I'm just not interested in sweeping anything under a rug.

Yes but what are you suggesting is being “ swept under a rug “ and what is your basis for saying that

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • RMweb Gold

For no other reason that they have an obvious vested interest. Again, my only point was that it might have been in their better interests to have said nothing about speed at all. Time will tell if  speed had anything to do with the failure but by attempting to deflect the question they only made it look (to me) that they were not exactly impartial.

 

As the A1 Trust has now turned over the investigation to a third party what they may, or may not have, discounted is of no consequence. I'm as interested in seeing Tornado run again as anyone. I'm just not interested in sweeping anything under a rug.

 

 

Out of interest do you know what speed she was doing when she failed ? I've not seen it published anywhere (may have missed it)

Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes but what are you suggesting is being “ swept under a rug “ and what is your basis for saying that

 

Simple enough - the A1 Trust immediately promoted the idea that the failure had nothing to do with speed, but (unless I missed something) they have presented no substantial evidence to support that argument. I didn't bring up the point about speed . The A1 Trust did. If they hadn't mentioned it we might not be having this conversation.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Simple enough - the A1 Trust immediately promoted the idea that the failure had nothing to do with speed, but (unless I missed something) they have presented no substantial evidence to support that argument. I didn't bring up the point about speed . The A1 Trust did. If they hadn't mentioned it we might not be having this conversation.

Clearly the issue of a 90 mph capable locomotive is central to the trust , to deny that is ridiculous. To ignore the issue of the speed in a statement is equally ridiculous.

 

Hence I see no issue with the statement , it does nothing for or against the cause of high speed steam, I’m sure NR will need a full and comphrensive engineering report before deciding , and won’t be swayed by the trusts statement , which is clearly aimed at the public , ie to offer some reassurance to the enthusiast etc.

Link to post
Share on other sites

 which is clearly aimed at the public , ie to offer some reassurance to the enthusiast etc.

 

OK then. So it was just a load of marketing baloney. That makes me should make us feel a lot better.

Edited by AndyID
Link to post
Share on other sites

The A1 Trust have given the information available to them at the time. The failure was due to a lubrication problem to the front middle valve. That is established. This would and did lead to failure of the valve gear. This failure would have occurred just as readily at 75 mph - or 50 mph, or whatever - as at 90 mph. The speed was not a significant factor other than it might have speeded the process up and caused the failure to happen slightly earlier than at a lower speed. The cause of the lubrication failure might take longer to establish.

 

We don't need another conspiracy theory. Leave well alone. Let them find the true cause.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Of course to get clearance for the 90mph running, Tornado did run a bit faster with full NR approval.

 

Let us wait and see what the investigations find as the cause and what is done to try to ensure it doesn't happen again.

Baz

Link to post
Share on other sites

Simple enough - the A1 Trust immediately promoted the idea that the failure had nothing to do with speed, but (unless I missed something) they have presented no substantial evidence to support that argument. I didn't bring up the point about speed . The A1 Trust did. If they hadn't mentioned it we might not be having this conversation.

The question of speed was unsurprisingly raised and the A1 Trust seem to have answered it as fully as they can with the available information. They appear to have been rather detailed about what they do know, giving out more than just simple press statements, and from what I've read here and elsewhere they are entirely competent and know exactly what's required to run on the 21st century railway (not sure why that's been brought up either). I don't see any reason to have doubts about their motives here.

Link to post
Share on other sites

For no other reason that they have an obvious vested interest. Again, my only point was that it might have been in their better interests to have said nothing about speed at all. Time will tell if  speed had anything to do with the failure but by attempting to deflect the question they only made it look (to me) that they were not exactly impartial.

 

As the A1 Trust has now turned over the investigation to a third party what they may, or may not have, discounted is of no consequence. I'm as interested in seeing Tornado run again as anyone. I'm just not interested in sweeping anything under a rug.

The A1 trust are basing their statements on ongoing engineering investigations, together with DBC appointed steam locomotive inspectors (who, incidentally, I know very well). Rest assured they will get to the bottom of it and make any repair or adjustment necessary.

 

The thing I find distasteful about your comments in this thread is that they seem to be based on nothing but your assumptions and the way you happen to feel at any particular time. They don't seem to be based to any degree on fact or engineering knowledge of steam locomotives...in short, they would seem to be nothing more than conspiracy theories. If in time you are right and others are wrong please feel free to say I told you so.

 

Knowing the people concerned in the A1 investigation though I don't think that's going to happen.

  • Like 4
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • RMweb Gold

The A1 trust are basing their statements on ongoing engineering investigations, together with DBC appointed steam locomotive inspectors (who, incidentally, I know very well). Rest assured they will get to the bottom of it and make any repair or adjustment necessary.

 

The thing I find distasteful about your comments in this thread is that they seem to be based on nothing but your assumptions and the way you happen to feel at any particular time. They don't seem to be based to any degree on fact or engineering knowledge of steam locomotives...in short, they would seem to be nothing more than conspiracy theories. If in time you are right and others are wrong please feel free to say I told you so.

 

Knowing the people concerned in the A1 investigation though I don't think that's going to happen.

 

Sorry, Phil, but a point is still being missed. The Trust issued this on the day of the event :

 

"The A1 Steam Locomotive Trust is disappointed to announce that No. 60163 Tornado failed whilst hauling ‘The Ebor Flyer’ on Saturday 14th April 2018 south of Peterborough. The failure was due to damaged inside motion. At this time the cause of the damage is not known but is not thought to be speed-related. Tornado was taken off the train at Peterborough and will be moved to the Nene Valley Railway for inspection and repairs. The Trust is conducting a thorough investigation. Further announcements will be made when the Trust has more information." I have emboldened the sentence that refers.

 

At that stage no dismantling had taken place, other than the involuntary destruction in running. How could they be so certain then that it was not speed related? 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Sorry, Phil, but a point is still being missed. The Trust issued this on the day of the event :

 

"The A1 Steam Locomotive Trust is disappointed to announce that No. 60163 Tornado failed whilst hauling ‘The Ebor Flyer’ on Saturday 14th April 2018 south of Peterborough. The failure was due to damaged inside motion. At this time the cause of the damage is not known but is not thought to be speed-related. Tornado was taken off the train at Peterborough and will be moved to the Nene Valley Railway for inspection and repairs. The Trust is conducting a thorough investigation. Further announcements will be made when the Trust has more information." I have emboldened the sentence that refers.

 

At that stage no dismantling had taken place, other than the involuntary destruction in running. How could they be so certain then that it was not speed related? 

 

Because if it was solely speed related it would have fallen apart when Tornado did the ton. Therefore there are other factors to consider.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The A1 trust are basing their statements on ongoing engineering investigations, together with DBC appointed steam locomotive inspectors (who, incidentally, I know very well). Rest assured they will get to the bottom of it and make any repair or adjustment necessary.

 

The thing I find distasteful about your comments in this thread is that they seem to be based on nothing but your assumptions and the way you happen to feel at any particular time. They don't seem to be based to any degree on fact or engineering knowledge of steam locomotives...in short, they would seem to be nothing more than conspiracy theories. If in time you are right and others are wrong please feel free to say I told you so.

 

Knowing the people concerned in the A1 investigation though I don't think that's going to happen.

 

Indeed, and if he is in the slightest way correct, it will be a coincidence - i.e. the good old stopped clock analogy, so even if he has the opportunity to say I told you so, it won't be worth the electricity to display it with.

Edited by Titan
Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.