Flying Scotsman

That'll be Lincoln Green then!

Richard.

 

Tender now de/re -wheeled, ( Pics on the works forum)
really is a thorough going over (or did they never quite get round to checking the tender out the first time round ?

 

The bigger question is whether the money and time equation ever gave anyone the chance to check everything on this engine? At least it does have a tender to call its own. Some engines are less fortunate.

 

Time is one thing this project has not been short of. Money either for that matter.

 

That question is answered by the 2012 Meanley report about the history of the overhaul up to that time, written for SMG/NRM after it became clear everything was going wrong.
http://www.sciencemuseum.org.uk/abo...~/media/33CDC07ED88345BEA5412F91D8742D45.ashx

And the subsequent First Class Partnerships report, which is a more detailed engineering asessment of how to go forward from that point.
http://www.nrm.org.uk/~/media/Files/NRM/PDF/NRM Flying Scotsman Final Report.pdf

At that time some, on this forum and elsewhere, criticised spending money on these consultants and predicted SMG/NRM would use their conclusions as an excuse to pull the plug on the funding and 'stuff & mount' the loco. Since then the work seems to have been managed much better and SMG/NRM have continued to fund the project. So I suggest bringing in the consultants at that time helped to save the project and was a very good move by the NRM.

 

two tenders in fact though one has now gone onto pastures new along with a boiler. I don't remember its condition being touched on in the report(tempted to have another read...)
I am really looking for the day she turns wheels on the mainline again, hopefully there will still be a few working drivers about from the last time around who can appreciate all the work, she must have been a bit rough and ready to handle before....

 

Personally, think nothing is being left to chance, and with the loco's high profile, it should that way.

Without doubt a top class job is being done, with an eye on the reliability enjoyed by the Ian Riley fleet, as a pre-requisite.

If that is the benchmark being aimed at, we should all be happy come the end of the elongated overhaul.

Cannot be long now.....

 

There must have been little doubt that once IR and his team were given responsibility for completing the overhaul, particularly with responsibilities for the first two years of operation after the completion, that whatever could be found that required attention would receive the fullest rectification.
The current overhaul did not commence too well but should be heading towards a fine conclusion. I am more concerned with previous overhaul work. But that is water under the bridge now. The lessons to be taken away from the current saga should prove of benefit in the years to come.
If only the money and time had been available to allow for the frames to be fully tested and improved to allow for the impact of the improvements made to boiler, exhaust, cylinders and main steam pipes. A far from ideal application of locomotive development options but it is hard to argue with the level of power output improvement achieved. What that application did to the chassis of the locomotive is, sadly, another matter. Avoidable? Yes.
The pressure to meet deadlines, to get the locomotive back into service cannot have been helpful.

 

The protracted nature of the overhaul means that it commenced pre austerity and the dramatic reduction in public spending. Had the commitment to commence it been at a later date its doubtful whether the amounts involved could have been sanctioned. Given an ROI expectation in the public sector of £10 per pound spent there will be an awful lot of payback expected in one form or another.

 

The RAIB report on Tangmere's crosshead failure highlighted the replacement of a small component by a somewhat different one without adequate assessment of its suitability. Considering just how many serious faults were eventually found on FS in both the frames and the boiler, we should be grateful that none of the failures during the last few months when FS was working trains was disastrous.

 

Some who have followed the fortunes of the engine over many years have been aware of the roller coaster state of the locomotive's condition. If more time and foresight had been made use of over the course of many of the previous adventures and events of earlier preservation years then this saga may not have played out in the way it has.

If Dr. Marchington desired that the locomotive should be modified in order to achieve a higher level of performance, at one level he was right since working on the mainline raises issues. He was paying the bills, he did own the engine, but the sole survivor of an important class is not the best subject for receiving performance modifications.

Given the history of medium/heavy modifications it is peculiar that the frames did not receive attention to make them fit to withstand the rigours of dealing with the impact of the steam circuit improvement.

In truth if a Super "Super Pacific" was what was wanted then a new build would have been the right way to go.

Just a few weeks to wait now. The cost will largely become forgotten. The lessons of the experience hopefully not.

 

First question ,in A3 form would 4472 have been powerful enough to meet the needs of the VSOE operation? the modifications were done because this was in my view seen as some as a money cow, ie guarenteed earnings, to earn them money, and to put a little of that back into the loco, but it didnt work out that way, the engineer in charge, i dont think gave thought to the added stresses and strains that running in super power mode would bring, or mistakenly thought that it wouldnt be an issue, you must remember that at the time, this gentleman was held in high regard, so anyone asking would have thought he must know what he is doing, hindsight would indicate he may have been out of his depth .
when 60103 steams again, hopefully in the not to distant future, all this will be largely forgotten, but the lessons must not, sensible loads behind the drawbar, a proper maintenance regime, unnder IR, i'm sure this will be the case, now after doing one LNER engine, can he be persuaded to do a second, something more simple like an Atlantic?

 

The bizarre thing is that in LNER and BR days the A1s/A10s and later A3s all suffered with cracked frames - some worse than others - and this was regarded as a fact of life.

Frames were replaced, sometimes 3/4 of them renewed, during the course of an overhaul and in considering the nature of Doncaster Works setup we should also remember that it was not until Cook took charge after the LNER has ceased to be that the frames of the big LNER Pacifics were set up with much better alignment and better tolerances in all of the associated components bolted onto them.

The A3s fitted with A4 boilers have been recorded as suffering some problems in the frames, due no doubt in part to the fact the A4 boiler was heavier than the A3 type. Why this wasn't taken into account when Scotsman was rebuilt with the A4 boiler the first time around is a significant question. Bear in mind the A4 boiler was actually originally fitted around the late 80s and that the engine has spent the last twenty five years or so with the double kylchap and you're looking at a locomotive which was effectively as per many of the class in the latter days of BR steam.

The thing that probably exacerbated the problems was boring out the cylinders and increasing the pressure of the boiler at the Marchington overhaul. Different sources cite Marchington or Kennington as the guilty party for wanting to "improve" Scotsman. I don't care to comment other than I think history should have shown those modifications without beefed up main frame strays as per the A4s was asking for trouble. We can debate this ad infinitum - and have done so - with hindsight, the fact remains that she looks to have been totally renewed this time around and that will be good for her, preservation and the NRM in that order.

I've seen some pics on the NRM site today and I cannot wait to see her in steam, personally.

 

Together with any ancillary waifs subjected to forces beyond the initial design....

 

I've probably asked this before, although I don't recall the answer, but were the cylinders bored out beyond what was normal on the A3s?
Wasn't it conventional to bore cylinders larger until they reached scrapping thickness just as it is with motor vehicles?
I recall back in my motorcycle trade days the standard manufacturer's oversize pistons took the capacity of a nominal 49cc moped up to something over 53cc, which technically made it not a moped! That was never regarded as being a big bore kit - such things would have been more like 65cc, and never especially effective unless more radical surgery was undertaken to improve the gas flow.

 

He's done the B12/3 and the Y14 (previously J15)