Tornado fails on ECML

[Reorte]

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? 

They didn't claim certainty. They said wasn't thought to be speed-related. That's quite a long way short of certainty. At most it implies that the most plausible hypothesis they had at the time based on what they knew at the time was a non-speed-related failure.

[Oldddudders]

They didn't claim certainty. They said wasn't thought to be speed-related. That's quite a long way short of certainty. At most it implies that the most plausible hypothesis they had at the time based on what they knew at the time was a non-speed-related failure.

 

Quite. It implies they knew what might have broken. And therefore implies they already knew it could have broken at 75 mph or less. If it was that likely what were they doing at higher speeds? The statement on the 14th was a mistake. Acknowledging the failure and saying it would be thoroughly investigated, which it undoubtedly is, would have reassured. Adding the rider that speed was probably not involved leaves an unnecessary doubt.

[Titan]

Quite. It implies they knew what might have broken. And therefore implies they already knew it could have broken at 75 mph or less. If it was that likely what were they doing at higher speeds? The statement on the 14th was a mistake. Acknowledging the failure and saying it would be thoroughly investigated, which it undoubtedly is, would have reassured. Adding the rider that speed was probably not involved leaves an unnecessary doubt.

 

So you would like them to be in the position that if they say nothing about it being speed related, people will speculate it was speed related, and if they do say it was not speed related people will speculate that it was speed related.

 

Nice position to put them in. Well done.

[john new]

Quite. It implies they knew what might have broken. And therefore implies they already knew it could have broken at 75 mph or less. If it was that likely what were they doing at higher speeds? The statement on the 14th was a mistake. Acknowledging the failure and saying it would be thoroughly investigated, which it undoubtedly is, would have reassured. Adding the rider that speed was probably not involved leaves an unnecessary doubt.

But it doesn't if you read it properly, even at 25mph on a preserved line with 350+ tons of tender and train behind the engine it will not stop instantly if the brakes are applied. Therefore even if the crew notice something odd and apply the brakes that moving mass will still rotate the valve gear during braking; potentially to the seize solid and snap the weakest link stage. IF they thought it was a lubrication failure issue (prime cause) creating the secondary mechanism damage that created the necessity to stop the train then going faster only has the impact of shortening the time from the initial squeek, squeek stages occurring to the final seizure, bend, boing stage. I am not going to speculate on why the lubrication supply may have failed, even if that was what it was, as that could well end up in legal actions and court proceedings (civil or criminal).

Edited May 1, 2018 by john new

[LMS2968]

When this happened and the first photo of the detached parts appeared, my first thought was: A valve head has seized in the valve chest. I'd be surprised if the Trust had not come to the same conclusion. If you work on machinery, especially if you are intimately involved and know it well, engineers KNOW what the problem is. This is especially true if, as in this case, the no-longer connected spindle refused to move under normal force.

 

There might have been some speculation involved in their first statement, but a very well informed educated guess is probably nearer the mark.

[Reorte]

Quite. It implies they knew what might have broken. And therefore implies they already knew it could have broken at 75 mph or less. If it was that likely what were they doing at higher speeds? The statement on the 14th was a mistake. Acknowledging the failure and saying it would be thoroughly investigated, which it undoubtedly is, would have reassured. Adding the rider that speed was probably not involved leaves an unnecessary doubt.

I don't see how "what were they doing at higher speeds?" follows from what you said before that - it appears to suggest that they were aware of a pre-existing problem, and I've not seen anything that suggests that. If they were aware of a problem that could result in this sort of failure beforehand I very much doubt they'd have been running at all. Acknowledging the failure and saying it would be thoroughly investigated doesn't really tell us anything - that there is a failure was obvious, and these days of course it'll be fully investigated. Instead they chose to tell people the current state of their knowledge of the issue and some thoughts on it, which I find pleasantly reassuring.

 

Adding that it was probably not speed involved only leaves what doubt existed at the time, which is less than saying nothing at all.

[Sheffield]

A lot of this discussion illustrates yet again the old saying. "The less people know about something the more they know that those responsible have got it wrong." We see it in the media every day.

[kevinlms]

I don't see how "what were they doing at higher speeds?" follows from what you said before that - it appears to suggest that they were aware of a pre-existing problem, and I've not seen anything that suggests that. If they were aware of a problem that could result in this sort of failure beforehand I very much doubt they'd have been running at all. Acknowledging the failure and saying it would be thoroughly investigated doesn't really tell us anything - that there is a failure was obvious, and these days of course it'll be fully investigated. Instead they chose to tell people the current state of their knowledge of the issue and some thoughts on it, which I find pleasantly reassuring.

 

Adding that it was probably not speed involved only leaves what doubt existed at the time, which is less than saying nothing at all.

Indeed the A1SLT, could have made a public announcement that merely said that 'the incident under under investigation, by the relevant authorities and so we have nothing publicly to say'. 

 

I agree that is positive to say something. Going over the actual words used, with a fine tooth comb, only suggests that some are reading something into the incident, that isn't intended.

[JimC]

I dunno Andy, I really think you are suffering from logic chopping.

 

Some faults are more likely to be speed related than others, and an experienced steam engineer will know which ones those are.

 

So, for the initial release they knew the general area of the problem, its not unreasonable for an experienced engineer to think to himself, and with the circumstances in mind, problems of that kind are usually caused by x x and x, therefore I don't think its speed related. No certainty, just don't think. I'd regard that as perfectly reasonable.

 

For the second statement they have stripped down the area, and they have done preliminary inspections, and believe its a lubrication failure. If its a complete lubrication failure in that area then there's no way its speed related. A speed/work related lubrication problem, as used to occur regularly on the big LNER locomotives until Cook sorted out the middle big end lubrication, is going to look rather different to a complete local lubrication failure. On the equipment I'm used to you can see it when you inspect the components, and I'm quite sure the same is true of steam locomotives.

Edited May 1, 2018 by JimC

[royaloak]

They didn't claim certainty. They said wasn't thought to be speed-related. That's quite a long way short of certainty. At most it implies that the most plausible hypothesis they had at the time based on what they knew at the time was a non-speed-related failure.

The higher the speeds the better the lubrication needed, just saying.

 

Edit-

Jim C has covered it.

Edited May 1, 2018 by royaloak

[jjb1970]

I liked this thread better when it was aboot American kettles, saving the world and anticipating when Godwin's law would take effect.

[LMS2968]

I liked this thread better when it was aboot American kettles, saving the world and anticipating when Godwin's law would take effect.

Each to there own...

[rodent279]

Godwin's law is a new one on me, so this topic going....well, off-topic, has meant that I've learnt something that I probably wouldn't have had it stuck to a large green replica kettle.

[MarkC]

OK, I'll bite...

 

Godwin's Law

 

 

http://knowyourmeme.com/memes/godwins-law

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin%27s_law

[roythebus]

In my limited experience of bus diesel engines failing, they don't go squeak squeak squeak. you normally don't know anything is wrong until it goes bang bang bang. The last time it happened to me was on my 1952 AEC Regal IV airport coach on the way to the Isle of Wight steam show in 2015. It had been running well, suddenly bang bang bang. Luckily nothing broke and I coaxed the bus on to the ferry at Portsmouth, to the show, and back to the ferry where a tow truck took it home. The fault was blocked oilways in the crankshaft. This cause big end bearing failure, it melted, the banging damaged the connecting rod beyond repair. 

 

Had the bus been fitted with an oil gauge the loss of oil pressure may have been noted earlier, but I doubt it. Usually with lube failure there is no warning. you certainly wouldn't hear a hot bearing squeaking in the noise of a steam loco cab! I'd suggest stopping the speculation and as we usually do in respect of accidents, leave it until the official report comes out.

[royaloak]

By the time you noticed the loss of oil pressure (if the oil way was blocked there wouldnt have been a loss of oil pressure) the damage would have been done, if an engine is going bang bang bang then something is very wrong and 'coaxing' it will only result in more damage.

Edited May 1, 2018 by royaloak

[jjb1970]

If you start losing pressure on a rotating machine then the only thing to do is to stop the machine. Hence why industrial systems have oil pressure and temperature monitoring among other condition monitoring parameters and are provided with alarms and shut downs. Reciprocating machinery is different as the means of lubrication is different.

[rockershovel]

“Not thought to be speed-related” seems to me, to be both unnecessary and possibly, downright foolish thing to say.

 

The issue is a mechanical failure, which occurred on a newly-built locomotive based on a design built specifically for running at high timetable speeds, on tracks designed for that purpose. This locomotive was running at a programmed speed which was designed to provide a path, on a high-speed modern railway.

 

Did they MEAN, “not thought to be caused by excessively high sustained speed”? Whatever they meant, surely any statement of that sort would have been better made behind closed doors, supported by proper detail, between those directly involved?

[Jol Wilkinson]

By the time you noticed the loss of oil pressure (if the oil way was blocked there wouldnt have been a loss of oil pressure) the damage would have been done, if an engine is going bang bang bang then something is very wrong and 'coaxing' it will only result in more damage.

 

If an oilway down stream of the oil pump is blocked you'll still get oil pressure in the oil galleries and passages but no feed to the bearings beyond the blockage.

 

The same thing happened on my 1938 MG VA many years ago when a partially blocked passage way in the crankshaft to one of the big ends caused it to fail. The rest of the engine was unaffected.

[Reorte]

“Not thought to be speed-related” seems to me, to be both unnecessary and possibly, downright foolish thing to say.

 

The issue is a mechanical failure, which occurred on a newly-built locomotive based on a design built specifically for running at high timetable speeds, on tracks designed for that purpose. This locomotive was running at a programmed speed which was designed to provide a path, on a high-speed modern railway.

 

Did they MEAN, “not thought to be caused by excessively high sustained speed”? Whatever they meant, surely any statement of that sort would have been better made behind closed doors, supported by proper detail, between those directly involved?

I assume they meant exactly what they said - why take it at anything other than face value? And why keep it behind closed doors?

[rodent279]

Was this kind of failure a common occurrence during the steam era? I know about the Gresley inside big end being prone to run hot, but this is a slightly different bag of nails.

[LMS2968]

It was far from unknown. There was a photo article in BRILL several years ago of Stanier Pacific 6256. It had suffered the same defect to its, I think, outer right hand valve. The photos included bits of twisted and mangled valve gear, and an explanation by Allan C Baker.

 

It wasn't just LNER engines which suffered failures.

[rodent279]

So, whilst I wouldn't like to say it's a storm in a teacup, it's not exactly one of Donald Rumsfeld's unknown unknowns is it?

[brack]

On its first passenger run at an increased speed the loco suffers a failure. The first question (or assumption?) on everyone's mind is whether it had anything to do with the faster speed. If you can see straight away that it looks like a lubrication failure in the valve, which could've happened at any speed with similar results, why not say so? The A1 trust have provided as much information as they can as early as they can so far as I can see.

[rab]

Interesting the way this thread is turning out.

Usually when something like this happens we get

speculation about the cause.

This time we are told the likely cause, so

instead we get speculation on whether it was

right to reveal the likely cause!