Tornado fails on ECML

[rockershovel]

If Tornado had been DCC it wouldn't have failed.........................................................

P

Obviously the Stay Alive wasn’t working....

[Siberian Snooper]

If Tornado had been DCC it wouldn't have failed.........................................................

P

 

Surely that would depend on the voltage to the frog juicers!

[AndyID]

Ah, the joy of the internet, where we need all of the information instantly, whether or not it's actually known.

 

If I were preparing the report, I wouldn't drip feed the facts to the media either, but wait until I had them all suitably prepared in the final document. I realise that this is anathema to some people who have no actual interest in the subject other than shear nosiness...

 

It's been four months. The fare-paying public has a right to know what they are getting themselves into. When is the the final document going to be released?

[Mallard60022]

It's been four months. The fare-paying public has a right to know what they are getting themselves into. When is the the final document going to be released?

Perhaps, except I would guess that 90% of the fare paying public have not got a clue about what loco they will eventually get on a train they book and the other 10% that might be, including enthusiasts, are understanding of the situation and can wait.

Phil

[AndyID]

Perhaps, except I would guess that 90% of the fare paying public have not got a clue about what loco they will eventually get on a train they book and the other 10% that might be, including enthusiasts, are understanding of the situation and can wait.

Phil

 

Hi Phil,

 

We get a lot of the old "trust us, we know what we're doing" argument around here too, but it usually turns out to be complete CENSORED.

 

The A1 Trust has been drip-feeding lots of cheery "we got it fixed" messages, but I don't think any of them talk to the root-cause of the failure. Forgive me, but that sounds like a load of marketing to me.

 

Can't have it both ways. Colour me cynical.

 

Andy

[LMS2968]

I stand by what I said in Post 619.

 

I can recall a video where the press was demanding answers from the air accident investigation team. At the time, they were standing in front of the still burning wreckage.

 

It takes time to assemble all the facts. Then it takes further time to isolate all the facts which, on examination, prove to be non-contributory. There will then be a number of possible scenarios as to the cause, and each must be followed up, investigated, dismissed or carried forward for detailed examination, until one or a combination of events is found to be the cause. It takes time and premature speculation gets you nowhere.

 

Returning to the air accident scenario, I recall an aircraft which crashed on take off. The junior investigator found a bolt on the runway, called a news conference and identified this as the cause. The senior investigator, who was on his way, knew that this was a symptom of the accident and not the cause, but his work load was increased as he now had the media which 'knew' what the cause was, and wasn't happy to be told it was something else.

[roythebus]

I don't think saying that the failure was noisy and potentially very serious would really count as "confidential" given that it was fairly obvious from the very first pictures released that this would have been the case. Hearing it from someone who was only 20-30 feet from the flailing metal, though, does, I think, have a certain anecdotal interest/relevance in a thread like this.

 

Quite. Railway problems are always full of anecdotal tales which are all part of the story. In this case first hand experience of the actual incident. 

Edited August 20, 2018 by roythebus

[kevinlms]

Hi Phil,

 

 

 

Can't have it both ways. Colour me cynical.

 

Andy

OK, then.

[Gibbo675]

Hi Phil,

 

We get a lot of the old "trust us, we know what we're doing" argument around here too, but it usually turns out to be complete CENSORED.

 

The A1 Trust has been drip-feeding lots of cheery "we got it fixed" messages, but I don't think any of them talk to the root-cause of the failure. Forgive me, but that sounds like a load of marketing to me.

 

Can't have it both ways. Colour me cynical.

 

Andy

This is a very colourful cynicism Venn diagram, hope you like it.

 

 

Gibbo.

[Oldddudders]

This is a very colourful cynicism Venn diagram, hope you like it.

It is certainly colourful, but I have no idea what it tells me, other than reminding me that I do not read such things easily. An odd impairment, especially as at one time I produced Gantt charts, not least one for a whole rolling stock delivery and resulting cascade.

 

I would never have made it as an engineer.

[Siberian Snooper]

I couldn't get on wiv them when I were at skool.

[Mallard60022]

This is a very colourful cynicism Venn diagram, hope you like it.

 

circles-cynicism.png

 

Gibbo.

That Chart is demeaning to those of us that have colour sight impairment and thus could not be locomotive drivers. 

S.Pecsaver

[Reorte]

I couldn't get on wiv them when I were at skool.

Recently I had to draw some four and five set versions. Had to Google them, I doubt I'd have worked them out myself, particularly the five.

[PhilH]

It's been four months. The fare-paying public has a right to know what they are getting themselves into. When is the the final document going to be released?

Presumably then if you catch an 'ordinary' train as a member of the fare paying public you need to know the full maintenance and incident history of that train just to know what you are getting yourself into...

[AndyID]

Presumably then if you catch an 'ordinary' train as a member of the fare paying public you need to know the full maintenance and incident history of that train just to know what you are getting yourself into...

 

Normally, no. I would only do that if I thought the operating company was withholding information for no apparent reason. The A1 Trust is reporting that repairs are almost complete and I think that's great. My only concern is if they don't know what caused to problem in the first place, how do they know it won't happen again?

 

Why do we need all the "cloak and dagger" stuff? I hope there's a simple explanation for the failure. If there isn't, I wouldn't blame NR for banning Tornado, and I think that would be a great shame.

 

If you haven't already guessed, I'm all in favour of running live steam on NR. What I'm not in favour of is withholding information for no good reason. The A1 trust either knows damn-well what caused the failure, or it doesn't. If it doesn't it has no business reporting that it has it fixed. It's one of those "cake and have it too" situations.

 

Improved Venn Diagram incoming.

 

Cheers

Andy

[Gibbo675]

Normally, no. I would only do that if I thought the operating company was withholding information for no apparent reason. The A1 Trust is reporting that repairs are almost complete and I think that's great. My only concern is if they don't know what caused to problem in the first place, how do they know it won't happen again?

 

Why do we need all the "cloak and dagger" stuff? I hope there's a simple explanation for the failure. If there isn't, I wouldn't blame NR for banning Tornado, and I think that would be a great shame.

 

If you haven't already guessed, I'm all in favour of running live steam on NR. What I'm not in favour of is withholding information for no good reason. The A1 trust either knows damn-well what caused the failure, or it doesn't. If it doesn't it has no business reporting that it has it fixed. It's one of those "cake and have it too" situations.

 

Improved Venn Diagram incoming.

 

Cheers

Andy

Hi Andy,

 

The locomotive was fresh off the works after a V&P overhaul and it is my guess that unfortunately the root cause is likely that the measuring sticks used were either incorrectly read, not properly calibrated against test bars, someone got their sums wrong or the ring gaps were incorrectly set.

 

In a locomotive with three sets of valves there are six heads with either four or six rings on each head, this makes either twenty four or thirty six ring grooves to machine into the heads and the same number of rings to fit to those heads. The clearances and tolerances involved with the fitting and setting up of valve rings are quite fine and required precise work. The diameters of the the front and back heads are usually a nominal 1/8" different to enable the valve to be more easily fitted, depending upon liner wear that figure may be reduced. Should the difference be around 1/16" or less then it would be possible to swap a front head for a back head and the assembly would allow fitting within the liner, although unlikely, possible

 

If you want my take upon the situation then look up my post a page or two back in which  give the probable reasons for that class of failure.

 

I look for ward to your improved Venn diagram, mine was pulled from the net some years ago.

 

Gibbo.

[john new]

Normally, no. I would only do that if I thought the operating company was withholding information for no apparent reason. The A1 Trust is reporting that repairs are almost complete and I think that's great. My only concern is if they don't know what caused to problem in the first place, how do they know it won't happen again?

 

Why do we need all the "cloak and dagger" stuff? I hope there's a simple explanation for the failure. If there isn't, I wouldn't blame NR for banning Tornado, and I think that would be a great shame.

 

If you haven't already guessed, I'm all in favour of running live steam on NR. What I'm not in favour of is withholding information for no good reason. The A1 trust either knows damn-well what caused the failure, or it doesn't. If it doesn't it has no business reporting that it has it fixed. It's one of those "cake and have it too" situations.

 

Improved Venn Diagram incoming.

 

Cheers

Andy

Cloak and dagger or prudence given in due course there may be commercial compensation negotiations, or worse, litigation?

 

As with the aeroplane bolt mentioned above - you say it did (it didn't) they take you to court, if it did then you, at the very least, seek compensation. All that is best done in private, personally I'm happy with having been told what broke, and the news on progress. If it turned out that It was simply fitter X put the wrong ring in/misread a micrometer, or designer Y miscalculated, internal procedures will change to prevent a repeat; do we really need those individuals publically vilified?

 

The crucial bit after any error by any team/individual doing anything is that those involved learn so repeats are mitigated and if sharing findings with others will avoid it happening again it gets spread. That is valid for something simple like getting a cup of tea made the way you like it (leaf or bag, bag or milk first : sugar/sweetener/neither) and increases in validity the more important or risky the process.

[Gibbo675]

Cloak and dagger or prudence given in due course there may be commercial compensation negotiations, or worse, litigation?

Hi John,

 

Silence is indeed golden is such circumstances.

 

Admitting to poor engineering, even should that be the case, would cause absolute chaos for all steam operations period.

 

Gibbo

[AndyID]

My goodness!

 

One way or another the truth is going to come out, and the more NR thinks there might be a conspiracy to hide the truth, the less likely it is that NR will allow Tornado to run on NR in the future. It doesn't matter whether the failure was the result of a design, manufacturing, or operational problem (or a combination of any of these). What does matter is that there is total disclosure of the facts.

 

And that's my only point. The A1 trust has been freely distributing information regarding their "fixes", but, (as far as I know) they are yet to describe what caused the problem in the first place. Whatever that was might be slightly embarrassing to those concerned but I think it would be a lot better to "come clean" and stop messing about.

 

I'd like to see Tornado return to the rails as much as anyone, but I think the A1 Trust is only making things far more complicated than they really need. Why, I do not know.

[jim.snowdon]

If RAIB is involved, as I believe is the case, then there will be an embargo on non-involved parties, ie you and me, being informed of the outcome of their enquiries until the report is published. The loco owners and NR will be kept in the picture to the extent that RAIB judges they need to be, and will be allowed to see the draft report pre-publication, but not to reveal its contents. RAIB reports are legally sub-judicatory until formally published and any public comment before then on the investigation or the report is an offence.

 

Jim

[jamie92208]

Are the RAIB doing an actual formal report or have the asked for what is known as "An Industry Report" before they make a final decision on what to do. That was what I helped to produce after a one off type incident I was involved in.

 

 

Jamie

[jjb1970]

I say get the kindling and stake ready for when we find out who is to blame, all profits from spectators to be donated to the A1 trust.

[JeremyC]

My goodness!

 

One way or another the truth is going to come out, and the more NR thinks there might be a conspiracy to hide the truth, the less likely it is that NR will allow Tornado to run on NR in the future. It doesn't matter whether the failure was the result of a design, manufacturing, or operational problem (or a combination of any of these). What does matter is that there is total disclosure of the facts.

 

And that's my only point. The A1 trust has been freely distributing information regarding their "fixes", but, (as far as I know) they are yet to describe what caused the problem in the first place. Whatever that was might be slightly embarrassing to those concerned but I think it would be a lot better to "come clean" and stop messing about.

 

I'd like to see Tornado return to the rails as much as anyone, but I think the A1 Trust is only making things far more complicated than they really need. Why, I do not know.

And what evidence do you have that the A1 trust is withholding information from those who 'need to know' ie NR etc. Too many people today think they have a right to know every tiny detail as soon as its discovered even though in many cases they can't understand the relevance of the information. The A1 trust presumably have given information about the repairs because it concerns when the loco will be available for service. Understanding the cause of the failure is important to the authorities, engineers and owners; it is only of passing interest to the rest of us.

[The Stationmaster]

Are the RAIB doing an actual formal report or have the asked for what is known as "An Industry Report" before they make a final decision on what to do. That was what I helped to produce after a one off type incident I was involved in.

 

 

Jamie

 

I don't know who is preparing what reports exist or are being prepared but there will definitely have been (or still be ongoing) an inquiry in either the sense of a formal one or one being conducted to establish facts.  A serious mechanical failure occurred on a train and that was a 'Notifiable' event as far as reporting to RAIB is concerned, there are then guidelines within RAIB's mandate which establish the need, or not, for them to conduct an investigation but it should be noted this is in the second rank of reportable/notifiable events - not the first.

 

However within the industry the incident itself should have been of sufficient severity to warrant an investigation and logically that should have been a joint process including all of those involved - i.e. NR, the train operator, and the loco owner, together with the body responsible for examining the loco and passing it fit to run on the mainline.  Such inquiry, again be it formal or informal, could clearly be split into various parts with the technical investigation being handled separately from the operational impact of the failure.  All such inquiries are private and would not fall into the public domain unless they subsequently become part of the evidence used in an RAIB investigation.  In other words whatever such inquiries concluded there is no requirement for any party involved to make public anything the inquiry concluded.

 

There might or might not have been questions of liability (beyond the operational liability in respect of the train delay, clearance of the cripple loco etc) and they too need not necessarily be aired publicly unless those involved agree to do so or RAIB requires wider advice within the industry if a systemic issue has been found - if the latter is the case then that issue will inevitably become public knowledge.

 

As already noted we live in an age of intense curiosity fed by instant media and communication with a particular thirst for 'someone to blame' and 'we must be told' plus 'we must be told now'.  Well if there is no need to tell us (because no systemic issues are involved) then there is no need to tell us and we are back with what those involved consider should be made public from a public relations viewpoint especially in terms of offering reassurance on safety matters, or perceived (by potential passengers etc) safety matters.  In other words we'll hear when we hear but only if there is anything considered to require wider dissemination or to be said as a matter of public reassurance.

 

Whether or not there are any legal liability matters involved is really entering the realms of speculation and while it might limit what can be said, or not said, in public it is a totally separate matter from the investigation process.

[ejstubbs]

The A1 Trust stated back in April that the RAIB had been informed of the incident on the day.  There is nothing on the RAIB's current investigations web page to indicate that they are taking any action.