Flying Scotsman 4472 report published

[Rlangham]

http://nrm.org.uk/AboutUs/PressOffice/P ... eport.aspx

http://www.nrm.org.uk/AboutUs/~/media/F ... tsman.ashx

Bit of light reading

[jwealleans]

Not much light in there. Sobering reading both for the specifics of 4472 and some of the implications for the wider heritage industry.

[60800]

It just puts into words what we all knew deep down, really

[drmditch]

Have read the full report with great interest.

Several questions result.
1. There does not seem to have been any input of ideas to the NRM from the A1 Trust, who have had to resolve and create solutions for all the problems identified in the report.
2. Is it possible or desirable to attempt to run a restored locomotive to the standards that 'Tornado' acheives.

There seems to be a very considerable confusion between 'conservation' and 'preservation' in the collective mind of the NRM.

Some of the history related is almost incredible. Of course running an A3 at 250psi resulted in damage to the frame and structure. Isn't that exactly why the A3s have smaller diameter cylinders than the (Gresley) A1s ?

I wonder whether the NRM should continue under it's current expectations. Perhaps some equivalanet to the A1 trust and methodology is required.

[S.A.C. Martin]

Some of the history related is almost incredible. Of course running an A3 at 250psi resulted in damage to the frame and structure. Isn't that exactly why the A3s have smaller diameter cylinders than the (Gresley) A1s ?

Which I must point out was done under Roland Kennington whilst the locomotive was in the ownership of Tony Marchington - the NRM inherited the locomotive as a 250lb pressure locomotive and with all the problems that has surely created.

[Andy W]

I found the report quite eye opening. Not in the state of 4472 when it was sold to the NRM (that was no surprise) but in the fact that the NRM were (and maybe are still) not in any position to deal with large engineering projects or the contracting of same.

What worries me is that this could finish them in terms of working steam if a less benign and more hesitant management structure decided that it was all too much. A positive engineering relationship with other bodies who are well versed in modern engineering management arrangements will help put off that evil day, one would hope.

I feel sorry for several people who are involved in the maintenance and repair of steamers when they have to constantly reuse old components rather than replacing with new. Nobody wants to walk away from a job, especially when they are emotionally attached to it, but that can lead you down the path of make do and mend rather than saying "No, I'm not doing that". It's a dangerous path and one, I find, that gets more tempting with age!

As for 4472, when it is eventually completed, I hope it will have a long time on the main line and be reliable.

[Blink Bonny]

Ay up!

I reckon that the NRM are simply catching up with the arrears of maintenance, caused by running the engine into the ground.

I personally don't think you can blame the NRM for this. Indeed, I think that they should be praised for putting the engine in the very safe hands of Mr Riley who has located these problems. Don't blame them - praise them. Let's face it, what finally emerges will be virtually a new engine and so fit for another 50 yrs service.

Plus, let us not forget that the probs 4472 has had are very similar, if on a worse scale, than those A3s fitted with A4 boilers had in "the good old days."

[60800]

At least she has an A3 boiler now

[Tom F]

Ay up!

Plus, let us not forget that the probs 4472 has had are very similar, if on a worse scale, than those A3s fitted with A4 boilers had in "the good old days."

Didn't A3s that ran with A4 boilers run at a reduced pressure in BR days?

[Solario]

I am afraid that I am not going to be so generous with the NRM as BB although they are probably not the main culprits.

With the benefit of hindsight, it seems rather unwise of them to appoint the same people to perform the inspection in 2004 as had been involved with it for the previous 10 years and it is these people who are mainly to blame - I wonder if they can be sued?

I also think that the lack of a qualified Project Leader was a major blunder. I know someone who has been involved on the sidelines who passed a similar comment a couple of years ago; he had a few pithy remarks about what was going on in Bury but I better not say too much. I also think that the decision on the boiler was hugely unwise.

From a general point of view, I wonder if they will ever get it running and just cut their losses and leave it to be stuffed & mounted? I hope not, but whatever happens I would think that it puts other projects such as the Duchess and Green Arrow in jeopardy, unless complete funding can be obtained from elsewhere.

The generation of steam engineers who were brought up in the BR workshops have all but disappeared and for all the enthusiasm and expertise of the current generation, they have not had the lifetimes experience of the likes of John Bellwood. How many mainline loco runs do you see with leaking cylinder or valve glands? This would not have been seen on other than very run down locos in the good old days.

Sorry to be pessimistic, but I think that we have to view the situation from the Science Museum's point of view. They must see this as a major embarrassment and it will be tempting for them not to embark on anything similar in the future.

[Blink Bonny]

Ay up, Tom!

Yes, they did indeed run with A4 boilers pressed to 225lb. However, those engines fitted with these boilers tended to suffer more frame cracks than those with "proper" A3 boilers. Summat to do with the different weight balance, I believe.

As for Solario's comments, yes he has a point. Eventually Mr Riley got involved so maybe the mistake was realised?

[drmditch]

Yes, they did indeed run with A4 boilers pressed to 225lb. However, those engines fitted with these boilers tended to suffer more frame cracks than those with "proper" A3 boilers.

Weren't the A3s designed for 220psi anyway?

[Tom F]

Ay up, Tom!

Yes, they did indeed run with A4 boilers pressed to 225lb. However, those engines fitted with these boilers tended to suffer more frame cracks than those with "proper" A3 boilers. Summat to do with the different weight balance, I believe.

As for Solario's comments, yes he has a point. Eventually Mr Riley got involved so maybe the mistake was realised?

Thanks Blink Bonny

So it's a case of sort of getting a square peg to fit a round hole!

[S.A.C. Martin]

I am afraid that I am not going to be so generous with the NRM as BB although they are probably not the main culprits.

With the benefit of hindsight, it seems rather unwise of them to appoint the same people to perform the inspection in 2004 as had been involved with it for the previous 10 years and it is these people who are mainly to blame - I wonder if they can be sued?

This is where Steam Railway Magazine gets the full brunt of my fury. If you read the report and other forums online, you will know that 4472 had been mismanaged for nearly a decade before the NRM came to own it. Its £1 million "restoration" in 1999/2000 was a record amount at the time, all completed at Southall. The report by Bob Meanley is pretty damning on the state of the locomotive in 2004 when it was bought, but why is a locomotive - used little on both mainline and on preserved railways for four years, after said overhaul - in such a dire state when bought?

Steam Railway Magazine has been on a mission to "get their man" and David Wilcock in particular hasn't helped anyone through his outrageous interview technique. The editorials on 4472 in said magazine ranged from the farcical (moaning about the liver, AGAIN) to outright condemnation and sensationalism of the highest order regarding the overhaul. If they should have been turning their lens on anything, it should have been why the locomotive was in such poor order when sold.

There is no doubt the NRM and its turnover of staff, together with the lack of detailed examinations of the locomotive and similar, have their role to play and burden of the blame for the project's over budget and over time results, but I am amazed that more is not made of the amount of money spent on restoring 4472 at its 1999 overhaul, and the lack of return made from what was clearly a mechanically very, very tired locomotive in 2004. I question Steam Railway Magazine's agenda in that particular case...

I also think that the lack of a qualified Project Leader was a major blunder. I know someone who has been involved on the sidelines who passed a similar comment a couple of years ago; he had a few pithy remarks about what was going on in Bury but I better not say too much. I also think that the decision on the boiler was hugely unwise.

I agree with you, bar the boiler. I think the decision to renew the authentic A3 boiler was the correct decision as the A4 boiler, pressed to 250lb has clearly caused its fair share of further damage, and it is unlikely the A3 boiler at 220lbs will do the same.

From a general point of view, I wonder if they will ever get it running and just cut their losses and leave it to be stuffed & mounted? I hope not, but whatever happens I would think that it puts other projects such as the Duchess and Green Arrow in jeopardy, unless complete funding can be obtained from elsewhere.

They need £300,000 apparently to complete the locomotive, but haven't got it; therefore the overhaul has stalled until a source of funding can be made available.

The locomotive will, in my view, reconcile its problems by proving a much more efficient and reliable performer when it returns to steam. It has already proven a very powerful source of income in terms of merchandise; once completed it is likely to be a great ambassador for the NRM.

But, as you say, they need to put structures in place - a chain of command, improved communications between shop floor and project management, and - most important in my view - levels of compliance that will prevent this from happening to 4472 whilst in the NRM's ownership ever again.

If 4472 has proven to be a guinea pig for a major rethink of how most projects in railway preservation has worked previously; and how they must be taken forward, so be it. It is worth knowing the worst so we can do better in future.

[richard]

SAC: Speaking more generally, I agree that Steam Railway (and Heritage Railway) are little more than tabloid magazines - that is why I stopped my HR subscription. Neither seem to let the chance of reality and logical thinking get in the way of sensationalism or reporting some alleged controversy or other.

Railway Magazine seems much more "just the facts ma'am and a few interesting feature articles thrown in for good measure", plus it covers more bases.