Tornado fails on ECML

[Michael Edge]

Seized valve spindle looks most likely, no damage to the slidebars or crosshead as the loco still rolls in mid gear, when the radius rod isn't moving. If there had been any damage to the crosshead/little end there would have a lot more bits in the 4ft and the loco wouldn't move without dismantling the middle cylinder gear completely. At the very least Tornado will need new crosshead drop link, union link and combining lever, most probably the valve spindle guide and probably the valve that caused the problem. 

[Steamysandy]

I remember many years ago(1976) finding parts of the middle cylinder valve gear from a DB class 044 lying on the track at Elbergen on the Rheine - Emden line.

It had just been left there!

[TravisM]

Genuinely sorry to hear about Tornado's mishap but what we all have to remember is that anything mechanical, will go wrong eventually no matter how carefully it's maintained.  People are saying that it's "only" 9 years old but how many people would drive their 9-10 year old cars at 75 or 90 mph towing a heavy trailer and not expect something to fall off?

 

I expect Tornado is maintained to a very high standard and meets Network Rail's very stringent criteria to run on their lines so this event, though dramatic will probably not stop her coming back onto the main line.  Remember 60532 Blue Peter's catastrophic uncontrolled wheelslip at Durham in 1994 and though that was caused by a inexperienced crew rather than mechanical failure, she was allowed to return to the mainline.

[sp1]

How common were failures like this back in the ‘steam era’?

[TheSignalEngineer]

Remember 60532 Blue Peter's catastrophic uncontrolled wheelslip at Durham in 1994 and though that was caused by a inexperienced crew rather than mechanical failure, she was allowed to return to the mainline.

Reputedly the same cause as with AI 60114 W P Allen when it was at Worcester on a railtour in the 1960s. It was reported to have got stuck in a wheelslip when being turned by a WR shed crew. IIRC the left hand connecting rod got distorted and it was at Worcester for about a month before being repaired and working a relief back from Birmingham to the ER.

[The Stationmaster]

True, but there is a video on YouTube taken from another train. It passes the valve gear assembly lying in the 4 foot then some distance later passes Tornado's train stopped. From that it would appear the valve gear became detached with Tornado moving.

 

Definitely serious if they had to resort to a D95XX to move it on the NVR

[TravisM]

How common were failures like this back in the ‘steam era’?

 

Probably more often than we realise and doubtful if ever reported outside the shed masters.

[The Johnster]

They were a known issue with East Coast 3 cylinder pacifics, but not so common as to provoke re-design.  The Gresleys were famously fitted with smoke bombs which went off when the middle big end overheated, warning the driver to ease up a bit!

A failure such as Tornado's back in the day would be easily enough repaired at any big well equipped shed, spares being on hand or easily obtained from Doncaster or Darlington, and the loco would be back in service in a few days.  The sort of failure that strews bits over the track where they can cause derailments were a lot more rare, though, fortunately.  

 

I don't think the comparison with cars as regards age is relevant; a steam locomotive is much more solidly built and designed to put in 30 or 40 years of service on express work in the case of an A1.  My view, and I am not claiming it to be a fact, is that as this failure is not speed related, it is down to either a stress related issue, or a failure of lubricant, the first being more likely.  If stress related, it may have been something that has been building over time as weaknesses and micro cracks developed in the steel.  It would then have failed without warning.  The replacement part will have to be closely monitored.

 

Tornado is a young engine and had not been worked as hard as a loco in daily service, which on the ECML involved 90mph plusrunning on a daily basis, so age is probably not an issue, but modern steam main line operations do not mollycoddle locomotives, which are expected to maintain loads and timings taken from their original work, and even the most experienced of modern crews do not have the background of daily running with the locos to draw on.  Maintenance is of a very high order, but is not 'backed up' by the staff or stores facilities that were available back in the day.  Thompson's pacifics were considered reliable and strong engines, less of prima donna's than the Gresleys, and the basic design is a sound one.

Edited April 16, 2018 by The Johnster

[34theletterbetweenB&D]

How common were failures like this back in the ‘steam era’?

 You might enjoy Bill Harvey's 'Sixty Years in Steam' for an insight into this aspect. Of a Britannia pacific: "its left hand piston rod...must have been discharged from the cylinder like a projectile from a gun, for it was found in the cess, whie fragments of the demolished cylinder cover littered the ballast."

[Dunsignalling]

They were a known issue with East Coast 3 cylinder pacifics, but not so common as to provoke re-design.  The Gresleys were famously fitted with smoke bombs which went off when the middle big end overheated, warning the driver to ease up a bit!

A failure such as Tornado's back in the day would be easily enough repaired at any big well equipped shed, spares being on hand or easily obtained from Doncaster or Darlington, and the loco would be back in service in a few days.  The sort of failure that strews bits over the track where they can cause derailments were a lot more rare, though, fortunately.  

 

I don't think the comparison with cars as regards age is relevant; a steam locomotive is much more solidly built and designed to put in 30 or 40 years of service on express work in the case of an A1.  My view, and I am not claiming it to be a fact, is that as this failure is not speed related, it is down to either a stress related issue, or a failure of lubricant, the first being more likely.  If stress related, it may have been something that has been building over time as weaknesses and micro cracks developed in the steel.  It would then have failed without warning.  The replacement part will have to be closely monitored.

 

Tornado is a young engine and had not been worked as hard as a loco in daily service, which on the ECML involved 90mph plusrunning on a daily basis, so age is probably not an issue, but modern steam main line operations do not mollycoddle locomotives, which are expected to maintain loads and timings taken from their original work, and even the most experienced of modern crews do not have the background of daily running with the locos to draw on.  Maintenance is of a very high order, but is not 'backed up' by the staff or stores facilities that were available back in the day.  Thompson's pacifics were considered reliable and strong engines, less of prima donna's than the Gresleys, and the basic design is a sound one.

Another aspect of present-day steam operations is that locos go through much more frequent cycles of heating and cooling. In the time of everyday steam operation, they seldom fully cooled down between boiler wash-outs.

 

This was cited as a reason for Tornado's boiler requiring heavy attention rather sooner than anyone seems to have expected.

 

Whilst motion parts are not heated to the same levels, repeated temperature cycling won't do anything to help prevent stress fractures.

 

John

[Nearholmer]

Irrespective of causes, it would be interesting to see the ‘bits falling off in a way that could cause derailment, per 100km in traffic’ figure for certificated main line steamers, compared with the equivalent figures for other motive power in use today.

 

That comparison might indicate whether or not, again irrespective of cause, there is ‘a problem’ or not.

 

Which is a thought that I expect to attract brickbats.

 

Kevin

Edited April 16, 2018 by Nearholmer

[Finsbury]

I have the sads. The Finsbury house was booked for a trip behind Tornado in July.

Many, many gloom.

 

Glad no-one was hurt.

 

Bernie

[TEDDYBEAR D9521]

Definitely serious if they had to resort to a D95XX to move it on the NVR

Nothing wrong with a Ted it was D9520 that dragged the failure to NVR shed.

[TEDDYBEAR D9521]

It’s been said the failure is down to a lack of oil to the middle cylinder which has caused the failure.

 

A statement made by the A1 Society on WNXX forum.

[Dava]

Tornado's winter overhaul was done by Locomotive Maintenance Services in Loughborough, after which there was a weekend running in on the GCRN and the loco has been back on the mainline for just a month or so since then. Needless to say you would not expect a lubrication and consequent mechanical failure to occur soon [or at all] after that. Expect a detailed investigation to find the causes, responsibility and repairs needed.

[The Stationmaster]

Tornado's winter overhaul was done by Locomotive Maintenance Services in Loughborough, after which there was a weekend running in on the GCRN and the loco has been back on the mainline for just a month or so since then. Needless to say you would not expect a lubrication and consequent mechanical failure to occur soon [or at all] after that. Expect a detailed investigation to find the causes, responsibility and repairs needed.

 

On the other hand after a recent works visit is just the time in the past when you could expect potential minor problems such as lubrication.  On a slightly different theme there was at one time a train which regularly conveyed ex works passenger vehicles and NPCCS and it suffered at least one vehicle with a hotbox on about 50% of the days it ran.

[Phil Bullock]

Reputedly the same cause as with AI 60114 W P Allen when it was at Worcester on a railtour in the 1960s. It was reported to have got stuck in a wheelslip when being turned by a WR shed crew. IIRC the left hand connecting rod got distorted and it was at Worcester for about a month before being repaired and working a relief back from Birmingham to the ER.

 

And here (S)he is languishing on Worcester shed...

 

http://www.miac.org.uk/worcester-1964.html#lner60114

 

Theres still much leg pulling goes on about this episode....

 

Hopefully Tornado will be fixed as quickly

 

Phil

Edited April 16, 2018 by Phil Bullock

[royaloak]

Did that 'bit' definitely FALL off ? - or was it gas-axed off, perhaps ?

Thats an interesting question, did the combination lever fail first causing the crosshead to fail, or did the crosshead fail and they gas axed through the combination lever to remove the damaged crosshead allowing the loco to be hauled away, or am I completely wrong?

 

I know what my money is on! 

 

After reading the rest of the thread I can confirm no 3, I was completely wrong.

Edited April 16, 2018 by royaloak

[russ p]

Genuinely sorry to hear about Tornado's mishap but what we all have to remember is that anything mechanical, will go wrong eventually no matter how carefully it's maintained.  People are saying that it's "only" 9 years old but how many people would drive their 9-10 year old cars at 75 or 90 mph towing a heavy trailer and not expect something to fall off?

 

I expect Tornado is maintained to a very high standard and meets Network Rail's very stringent criteria to run on their lines so this event, though dramatic will probably not stop her coming back onto the main line.  Remember 60532 Blue Peter's catastrophic uncontrolled wheelslip at Durham in 1994 and though that was caused by a inexperienced crew rather than mechanical failure, she was allowed to return to the mainline.

Blue Peter's incident was caused by an inexperienced driver the fireman who is sadly no longer with us was very experienced and prevented more damage by pulling the regulator out of the drivers hand and slamming it shut.

He also threw his shovel to shut the flap in the fire hole door as he feared a blow back

He was also a great modeller

God bless Ken

[Titan]

It’s been said the failure is down to a lack of oil to the middle cylinder which has caused the failure.

 

A statement made by the A1 Society on WNXX forum.

 

Hmm. When they say middle cylinder, do they mean everything associated with the middle cylinder including the valve gear?

 

I don't know what the arrangement is on an A1, but normal practice is to have one lubricator on the steam line, so either all three cylinders get oil or none do.

[Mallard60022]

They were a known issue with East Coast 3 cylinder pacifics, but not so common as to provoke re-design.  The Gresleys were famously fitted with smoke bombs which went off when the middle big end overheated, warning the driver to ease up a bit!

A failure such as Tornado's back in the day would be easily enough repaired at any big well equipped shed, spares being on hand or easily obtained from Doncaster or Darlington, and the loco would be back in service in a few days.  The sort of failure that strews bits over the track where they can cause derailments were a lot more rare, though, fortunately.  

 

I don't think the comparison with cars as regards age is relevant; a steam locomotive is much more solidly built and designed to put in 30 or 40 years of service on express work in the case of an A1.  My view, and I am not claiming it to be a fact, is that as this failure is not speed related, it is down to either a stress related issue, or a failure of lubricant, the first being more likely.  If stress related, it may have been something that has been building over time as weaknesses and micro cracks developed in the steel.  It would then have failed without warning.  The replacement part will have to be closely monitored.

 

Tornado is a young engine and had not been worked as hard as a loco in daily service, which on the ECML involved 90mph plusrunning on a daily basis, so age is probably not an issue, but modern steam main line operations do not mollycoddle locomotives, which are expected to maintain loads and timings taken from their original work, and even the most experienced of modern crews do not have the background of daily running with the locos to draw on.  Maintenance is of a very high order, but is not 'backed up' by the staff or stores facilities that were available back in the day.  Thompson's pacifics were considered reliable and strong engines, less of prima donna's than the Gresleys, and the basic design is a sound one.

Stink Bomb, Johnster. Smoke Bomb might not have been noticed........ 

Edited April 16, 2018 by Mallard60022

[woodenhead]

Stink Bomb, Johnster. Smoke Bomb might not have been noticed........ 

Maybe someone was applying the same technique to Tornado but forgot to put the word Stink in the order and just got a bomb.

[brack]

Hmm. When they say middle cylinder, do they mean everything associated with the middle cylinder including the valve gear?

 

I don't know what the arrangement is on an A1, but normal practice is to have one lubricator on the steam line, so either all three cylinders get oil or none do.

Unless something gets into the system and blocks the line to the middle cylinder?

[jim.snowdon]

They were a known issue with East Coast 3 cylinder pacifics, but not so common as to provoke re-design.  The Gresleys were famously fitted with smoke bombs which went off when the middle big end overheated, warning the driver to ease up a bit!

A failure such as Tornado's back in the day would be easily enough repaired at any big well equipped shed, spares being on hand or easily obtained from Doncaster or Darlington, and the loco would be back in service in a few days.  The sort of failure that strews bits over the track where they can cause derailments were a lot more rare, though, fortunately.  

 

Thompson's pacifics were considered reliable and strong engines, less of prima donna's than the Gresleys, and the basic design is a sound one.

First, the poor performance of the Gresly middle big end bearing was sufficient to warrant their eventually being replaced by a rather more substantial design imported from Swindon. The "stink bomb" was not a cure, but merely a palliative measure to keep them going before catastrophic failure occurred.

 

Second, Thompson's pacifics were not exactly engineering successes. Tornado is patterned on a design prepared under Peppercorn's tenure as CME, and could be said to be a continuation of the Gresley lineage with the worst bits taken out.

 

It’s been said the failure is down to a lack of oil to the middle cylinder which has caused the failure.

 

A statement made by the A1 Society on WNXX forum.

I wouldn't trust anything that is not a definitive statement, bearing in mind that this event is already under investigation by that bit of the ORR that is the Railway Inspectorate, and almost certainly by RAIB. Whilst it is under investigation, the parties that do know are not in a position to go making detailed statements. In any case, if you get a seizure in the cylinder, think what is going to give. A full blown seizure at that speed would result in considerably more damage - it is akin to the irresistable force meeting the immovable object, and a train with a mass of several hundred tons doing that sort of speed has a very considerable amount of kinetic energy.

 

Ascertaining what caused that event may be anything from the blindingly obvious to detailed examination of how the components concerned broke, and that we will not get until RAIB publishes its report. Until then the findings are privy to RAIB and those parties who have a need to know, particularly the locomotive owner and the infrastructure operator. They are sub judicae and revealing the results is an offence; if there is something that other operators need to know before publication, the RAIB will issue an Urgent Safety Advice.

 

Jim

[Davexoc]

On the other hand after a recent works visit is just the time in the past when you could expect potential minor problems such as lubrication.  On a slightly different theme there was at one time a train which regularly conveyed ex works passenger vehicles and NPCCS and it suffered at least one vehicle with a hotbox on about 50% of the days it ran.

Have to agree that problems will always crop up following maintenance. Lubrication, hydraulic or pneumatic systems are all prone to problems after maintenance. Someone disconnects a pipe, stuffs a bit of rag up it to stop oil dripping out and crap getting in, then someone else comes along a refits it inadvertently leaving a piece of rag in the pipe, or introduces some other contaminant. It might float around for a while, even get expelled and not noticed, but then again it could block a pipe or jam in a valve. The times I've seen and heard of people replacing parts and leaving the transit bungs in things, then wondering why there is a lack of pressure.

A lecturer a N. Notts college once told me that the act of disconnecting and reconnecting a hydraulic hose would introduce thousands of tiny particles into the system. If it ain't broke, don't take it apart.

 

Dave