Flying Scotsman

So 45407 supplies the air to operate the loco brakes on the A3 which, when leading, is creating the vacuum train brake (ejector) that then proportionately applies the loco air brake? Why not just run in air train brake mode? Not challenging, just curious.
IIRC 45407 retains native primary steam and vacuum brake system on the loco. When required to haul an air braked train the auxiliary air brake system is used ie if its vac only working air system inactive, pump not running; air mode - proportionately applies vac/steam loco brakes.

 

It's just been announced at Bury that 45407 has a problem, so FS will be assisted by a diesel.

 

Well some of the things that have been advertised in the magazines as approved by the Nrm like the £2.99 model and the cheap clock were just tat,they will never recoup the money spent on it.

 

Running an hour down according to signalman at Rawtenstall. Lineside was busy, but people have returned to cars, for shelter. Not a great start.

 

A word of warning. Flying Scotsman's earnings potential has been over-estimated by every preservation owner so far. Probably the loco has never recouped its overhaul costs - I guess this is why Mr. McAlpine eventually wanted to sell it. And, unlike the Thomas trademark etc. which has been commercially set up and protected from the outset, any 'Flying Scotsman' name or image rights will be very weak and probably unenforceable. Just as Flying Scotsman Plc found. Good Luck to the NRM in running this wonderful loco but I doubt it will be as much of a cash cow as some seem to assume.

 

Yup I can see a shed load of people on the track ahead of me

 

One question is why the A3 has repeatedly cost vastly more to overhaul than comparable locos of lesser celebrity?
In the Carnforth days it was allegedly an open secret that contractors inflated their costs if it was a job for Flying Scotsman. Thus probably contributed to maintenance being neglected and later more work being required.
The converse of celebrity in those days was that it was allowed out when other locos may have been deemed not ftr. Again, rumours from the Carnforth days.

 

This programme is now available on the iplayer. Tom Ingall was supposed to be on holiday yesterday but he turned up for work to report about 60103! As you can see from the report he was very excited.

 

If it was an open secret it never reached my ears. Which contractors are you referring to?

 

Only repeating anecdotes from some ex Carnforth volunteers 20 years or so ago. Specific businesses weren't named, which I accept sounds lame.

 

Lovely sequence of 45407. My favourite class of non SR loco by a very long way. You didn't manage to get a shot of her on her own did you?

Before she encountered the problem mentioned above.

 

That's why I asked, as an ex Carnforth volunteer. I cannot imagine Messrs Hinchcliffe and Cottam allowing her out if she wasn't FTR.

 

Think it would have been FTR in BR days though, which was perhaps more the point. Not impunging any of the names you mention either, they were men of the highest calibre.
If you want a private discussion PM me.

 

FS an hour late so going for a run with 34092 and hope to pick up FS later. Does nothing go right with this engine?

 

Is that fair or true? I think Pegler found that on the first commercial tour of the USA she was very profitable! It was the second tour running without sponsors (unwise) that bankrupted him and that was entirely down to his business choices and not the locomotive's potential revenue raising potential.

A lot of supposition there - one suspects she's being differently managed to past owners. We don't know the full financial arrangements under McAlpine but that she ran for him 1973-1995 indicates that she wasn't entirely unprofitable. She certainly got about - a very successful, sponsored tour of Australia in that period. So how you can make that assumption is beyond me.

Even a little bit of googling will show that you need a license from the NRM to use the brand name they've trademarked (in the same way as Thomas actually) so again your assumptions are unfounded.

EDIT: and just a bit of background, I once enquired about attaining the license to write a children's book on 4472. It was at the time not financially viable for me, but for someone else it well could be. The NRM are of course protective of their brand but they are open minded too.

I think you gravely underestimate the world wide appeal and interest this locomotive generates. Must say something to be on the front pages of a number of national newspapers and on their websites, not to mention the TV coverage.

 

You haven't commented on my post post 4003!.

 

I didn't think it was necessary: you don't seem to be aware of how licensing works and I covered that in my post above if you read carefully.

EDIT: But just in case, for everyone else, and to clarify:

The "tat" you refer to isn't a risk the NRM undertake. The companies which make those products undertake the risk. The NRM sell a license to use the brand for X product for Y amount of time (and there's other conditions too).

So far from not recouping costs I would say 4472 is financially viable because of the variety and numeracy of the products available. Add to the fact they're also sold in the NRM's outlets and you can see that there's commercial sense in having the name trademarked and then licensed out.

 

Manchester Evening News coverage.

http://www.manchestereveningnews.co...ing-scotsman-passengers-railway-bury-10708982

Some people might be playing with fire, or recreating the 1960s.

 

Well how much is a licence ? ,if your selling a model for £2.99.

 

Depends on the product. The economies of scale of manufacturing that £2.99 model might mean you make the cost of the license back pretty quickly.

Off the top of my head, and as an example, when I enquired about the children's book, the license was just over £1000: but it would have covered me for a few years and no limit on the number of books produced in that period.

I was only looking to print and sell 2000 paperback books, with a cost to manufacture around £2.50 at the time and my break even point (without license) at £5.20 taking into account paper, ink and manufacturing costs. So for me, adding the license on top of that, and putting the price up from my preferred £7.99 to £9.99, it wasn't financially viable. For other publishers who can do bigger print runs it would have been.

Bear in mind what that license entails - the ability to use certain logos, the brand name, etc, and that there are restrictions on how you present it, etc. There's a lot of advantages in taking out a license for a product and producing a low manufacturing cost, high profit product if the license you've picked is a good seller.

Look at how Disney & Star Wars have worked in the last couple of years and you'll see where the profit's made - not necessarily in the in house stuff but where you've sold a license to make a product.