6100 Royal Scot

As said, pity none preserved, they were the equal of a Scot despite smaller cylinders and better riding to boot.

Dave

 

Off topic I know but I cant help but think that the 45551 guys could launch an appeal down the piece for a second boiler for 'the Unknown Warrior' to portray the rebuilt guise of the loco in the future- who wouldn't want a fresh boiler waiting in the wings and a 7 year period to overhaul each one in turn!?

Chris

 

There are many more differences involved in such a rebuild than just the boiler, though. You might as well start from scratch.

 

I'm not well versed in the rebuilds I'm afraid- don't suppose you could point me in the direction of some reading by any chance please?

Ta in advance!

Chris

 

Book of the Royal Scots and Book of the Patriots by Irwell Press.

 

@Johnb

Thanks!

 

If they had that much money to splash around then I'd sooner see it go on a new Fowler 2-6-4T

 

That's just a scratch as my old PE teacher would say!
I remember one occasion when two of my friends ran into each other whilst playing Rugby. They actually split their heads open and my PE teacher just said "It's alright lads it's just a scratch. Play on". They didn't play on for much longer as they collapsed. Shortly after an ambulance was called. Sorry, bit of a thread drift there.

 

Actually, with 45551 under construction, we won't be doing too badly for LMS-designed express locos. I think that 42424 is a good idea, but rather than produce extra boilers for Royal Scots or Patriots, a more worthwhile project would be to address the shortage of express locos from the constituents of the LMS. All we have are the Compound and Spinner from the Midland, Hardwicke and Cornwall from the LNWR and Caley 123. Only one 4-4-0 and no 4-4-2s or 4-6-0s, no express locos at all from the L&YR, Highland or G&SWR. Still, the "Prince George" project is a step in the right direction.

 

Or better still channel the available money into keeping rather more useful heritage line locos in serviceable condition. Whilst the arm chair train spotters dream of creating this or that extinct giant making ever more items to be cared for by shrinking practical support, it seems to be escaping many folks notice that there is a shortage of appropriate WORKING locos out there now!

 

And what do you propopse to do when what we have now is incapable of steaming?

 

It'll be nice to see Blue Peter back. Maybe JH could get together with the NRM and do similar for Green Arrow too, depending how bottomless his pit is? But I don't have an issue with new builds either. My money, my choice.

 

And that sir sums it up rather well.

 

Problem is... many of the locos you talk about saying "give to xx loco to get it to steam" are owned by individuals who say "its mine, ill do what i want" or groups that are shareholders etc or railways themselves that say this is our loco, its in the queue about 5 locos down. So it difficult to give sometimes. Look at the Bluebell and SVR museums and youll see masses of great locos sitting around not being used or even fund raising going on for them. Then you go to say other lines like say Ecclesbourne or Churnet valley where a Jinty would be ideal and im sure these railways would give them more chance of steaming.

If a loco has little chance of steaming to me this sounds a better plan. Say the SVR and its Jinty (is this in a queue at all?) Have no plan to restore it for 10yrs they could say to somewhere like the Churnet valley have the loco and restore it to steam with your volunteers, own railway fundraising and you can use it for its 10yr period. The SVR gets to have it back for events if it wants it. Similar to people who do deals with the NRM. Im sure there are plenty of vehicles that the NRM could send to the Engine house to replace it.

Gav.

 

This is an excellent idea, with an added bonus of keeping the engine house constantly changing, perhaps a 'bonus' selling point for the SVR?

I suppose the only drawback might be that after the 10 years is up SVR get their jinny back requiring a much lighter overhaul than before for very little outlay, which seems a bit unfair on the CVR (to use your example). This might be relieved by having a longer hire period of perhaps two boiler tickets but then this may be too long.

 

The Jinty is in the overhaul queue at the SVR, I understand it is the next "small loco" to enter Bridgnoth works once 7714, 813 are returned to service.

The new build vs restoration debate has been rolling on for some time now and it comes down to a matter of interest. If a new build project can generate enough interest to convince enough people to part with a sufficient amount of hard earned cash to build the loco, it will get built. Same applies for any loco owning group looking to restore their locos - it all comes down to generating interest and therefore funds. There are plenty of owning groups out there who don't self promote or do as much as they can to fund raise - its not simply a case of "railway x or railway z has too big a queue for us to get our loco in traffic".

 

How does it tally that the - shall we call them the owning railway - get a loco in much better condition back following ten years use by someone else? It will have had significant use, especially if the scenario is that the loco goes to a railway in desperate need of its services, and therefore significant wear and tear.

 

It depends on the original condition of the loco before overhaul vs use after overhaul! I bet 4472's next overhaul won't cost £3million...

 

Agreed, but if Scotsman's saga has been a good example of anything, it is that estimating the cost of an overhaul is approaching absolute guesswork. It is because of this that passing the liability onto another railway or group is such a difficult thing to do. There are so many variables that are hard to quantify. Put it in a scenario...

47383 is loaned to the CVR following an independent assessment which says the overhaul will cost approx £200,000. During the overhaul process it is discovered that a new cylinder block is required, or that boiler work is significantly more complex than first thought. The overhaul cost is now approx £350,000. Who is responsible for finding the extra money? The CVR? The SVR? The owning group? If the CVR decides it cannot justify the extra expenditure, how are they reimbursed for the work they have already done? Do they get the loco for a fraction of the originally promised time, a substitute loco?

Not trying to poo-poo the concept - its just a complex one. Look at the current situation with 6634 for a real life example.