Flying Scotsman 4472 report published

[S.A.C. Martin]

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.

I cancelled my Steam Railway Magazine subs and made a complaint to the publishers at the same time. It was a rather sad day as my late grandfather had originally set it up for me.

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.

I'm with you there Richard; they've upped their game and it's much more informative and pleasant read than Steam Railway.

[Solario]

In reply to SACM:

This is where Steam Railway Magazine gets the full brunt of my fury.

Yes, I think that they are responsible for the demise of Steve Davis, whatever the "official" reasons given, rather sad because he seemed to be just what the NRM needed; he inherited a poisoned chalice. The Steam Railway interview by David Wilcocks served no practical purpose other than sensational journalism. I cancelled my subscription to said magazine in the mid 90s partially because I was fed up of Wilcocks banging on nearly every month about liveries ( & how they should all be BR).

I agree with you, bar the boiler.

My point about the boiler, is that it was an unnecessary expense. There is nothing wrong with A3s using diagram 107 boilers if the safety valves are set to 220 psi. They are indistinguishable apart, externally.

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.

I am sure that you are right, once finished it will be a great ambassador, I do hope that the general public will be largely unaware of the problems.

[69999]

Blink Bonny -

"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."

Very interesting. I have never read that before. What is your source please?

DG
69999

[S.A.C. Martin]

I've read that somewhere too - I believe I've read it recently in Peter Townend's East Coast Pacifics at Work, but it may well be Cecil J. Allen's British Pacific Locomotives too.

[Blink Bonny]

Ay up!

O S Nock cites it in his magnum opus, The LNER Pacifics. Also Brian Haresnape in his work Gresley Locomotives. Also Peter Coster in several British Railways Illustrated articles.

Indeed it is Mr Coster whpo suggests that the different weight distribution of the A4 type boiler may have been responsible.

[69999]

Blink Bonny

Thank you.

DG
69999

[Coboman]

Scotsman in the news again. will it ever end?
http://www.yorkpress.co.uk/news/1014422 ... r_bill___/

[S.A.C. Martin]

Note that their source is Steam Railway Magazine...

...personally, whether it's bad or not, I'm going to wait for the official press release. Too many people have too much of an agenda in the railway press in order to read an article which is wholly objective.

[Rlangham]

Isn't this just reiterating what was in the report published a while ago? Oh well, good chance for some more NRM bashing (some, no, a lot of the comments on the NRM's facebook page are pathetic)

[richard]

Independent report published today, the NRM's press release is here:

http://www.nrm.org.uk/AboutUs/PressOffi ... 08%20March

Basically, more or less what we knew already. Work will be going out to tender. Middle cylinder needs re-aligning. All three cylinders need lining and re-boring. A part of the front section of the frames still unexamined - will receive examination when the cylinders are removed.
Won't steam until 2015.

[S.A.C. Martin]

Thanks for the heads up Richard. One of those things I suspect. Am gratified to note there is absolutely no mention of curtailing the restoration. It's not the best news we could have had, but not the worst case scenario. I am wary of tendering "outside" unless it's to Bury, personally.

[richard]

The earlier report did talk of "cottage industries" being a problem, so I suspect/hope that will be taken on board. As far as I am aware, the NRM has had good experiences with Bury, so they are probably high on the list.

[neilgow]

I find it strange that all of a sudden the cylinders need relining at this late stage and the centre cylinder to be removed from the frames. I mention this, because around the year 2000 I attended a meeting in Slough where the guest speaker was Roland Kennington and he described in great detail the work carried out on the chassis and I am sure the middle cylinder was removed at that time. I cannot imagine that if it was and they found that repairs were needed they would have been attended to.

All in all, he and his team must have done a good job as FS ran for many years on the mainline before being retired to the NRM.

Rgds

NG

[Andy W]

It is a very sobering read and a sorry tale for all those involved since the decision to go 250lb with the 20 inch cylinders. The good thing is that it is all fixable, at a cost.

Appendix 4.1 is the clincher for me. The NRM were, with best intentions, out of their depth and if they had persisted with the middle cylinder 'as is' in combination with all those as new spec. Components, there would have been a catastrophic failure. That paragraph came back at me in letters six feet high.

The statement that the wear in components had actually prevented such a failure happening before is ringing bells. Between 1987 and 1994 all of the WR daily steam exams passed across my desk. The inspector, an experienced steam man, went beyond the call of duty in making sure the locos ran and were fit to run but there was one engine that had mechanical issues logged clearly in excess of the others and that was FS. The best, by far, was Clan Line.

To apportion blame is facile. You can only do what you can with older components and the facilities you have, whatever your engineering competence and that is the problem with steam nowadays. You need to be prepared to do a lot more manufacturing from new than previously and have the project planning and management skills to get the job done, obviously knowing what you have to do engineering wise. That all costs serious money.

I thought the paragraphs on future management and maintenance are spot on and I do detect the hand of my old boss P.N.Townend in some of this report. He was one of the consultees.

I don't want to see any more shock! Horror! Stuff in the railway comics. It's time to move on - now let's make sure it gets the funds it needs. I want to see it back running on the ECML!

[S.A.C. Martin]

To apportion blame is facile. You can only do what you can with older components and the facilities you have, whatever your engineering competence and that is the problem with steam nowadays. You need to be prepared to do a lot more manufacturing from new than previously and have the project planning and management skills to get the job done, obviously knowing what you have to do engineering wise. That all costs serious money.

According to the two documentaries that Tony Marchington had made about 4472 whilst he owned it, the total cost of the Southall overhaul was in excess of £2.25 million, a figure which is contradicted by the railway magazines at the minute (and given at a much lower figure of £1 million, despite having previously reported the higher figure).

£2.25 million is not far off what has been spent on this current overhaul, which seems to have done more in terms of component renewal and replacement than was done at the previous overhaul. My question is: what was the £2.25 million spent on in the last overhaul?

It is not just about apportioning blame - if 4472 had been sold with a full report on what needed doing, as opposed the "sold as seen" mentality which meant 4472 was sold without lots of spare parts (still knocking around Southall if you believe Nat Pres) and with things such as the tender handbrake dismantled prior to sale, the NRM might have had a fair chance at restoring her in a shorter amount of time and with a better knowledge of the engine.

However I feel that things happen for a reason, and if 4472 is the guinea pig which sees the NRM change some policies to suit changing climates, but for the long term benefit of its working exhibits and the general public which supports it, then I say the pains of 4472 were worth it.

In the long term, the NRM are going to get a much better locomotive than was bought, and the people who helped saved 4472 for the nation will get a more reliable spectacle too.