Flying Scotsman

HI when the loco was painted in BR brunswick green the paint was tekaliod paint and painted by Roy baker of the SVR at babcock robey ltd , Roy used to say put boiled linseed oil in the paint then you will get a good finish, Overhaul at southall when painted in apply green we used Williamson paint, boiled linseed oil used again and williamson web site is the flying scotsman in apply green.When repainted at doncaster works Williams again in two pack paint and doncaster and easleigh works have special spray booths to do this kind of work now plus underground trains are painted in two pack paint, so no issues with H&S long as the rules are followed with, Yes I will live with it but think still to light. FISH7373 81C NFP

 

Brush painting is the only way... Anyway, as long as all the brush strokes are vertical and don't resemble ploughed fields I think it looks much better than a flat spray finish.

I hadn't appreciated the Robson Green documentary was ITV - I do hope they don't try and over-dramatise things as they so often do, They do it with nature documentaries (give me Attenborough any day) and it gets right up my nose.

 

Tekaloid used to be the first choice for many, but some years back they changed the formulation & the green is all but useless for painting anything that gets hot and/or spends a lot of its time out in the open exposed to UV. When 6024 was repainted into BR it had seven coats of Tek on the boiler barrel, but that didn't stop the paint 'bleaching out' where a couple of feed pipes ran under the cladding. 4144 ditto; it went from a nice bronze green to an almost Castrol shade in its first stint in traffic - purely down to UV.

The boiled oil trick is one of the oldest in the book. At Didcot we in C&W pre-mix 50/50 oil & white spirit (or even clean paraffin) and add that to a kettle of paint prior to use - the amount varies depending on the weather. For brushes I settled on Purdy Monarch Elites a while back; they ain't cheap but they aren't half good - Hamilton Perfections are just a stick with string on it by comparison.

Modern water-based two pack is a lot less dangerous than the old xylene-based stuff that DoG and No. 22 got sprayed with, but the HSE recommendations/requirements make for sobering reading. I'll leave that stuff to the big boys thanks.

FWIW I think that 60103 looks a bit 'bright' in the photos, but I'll reserve judgement until I see it in the flesh. Either way it looks damn good & sounds spot on - I've no problems with the comedy whistle either if that's what it carried back in the day.

Pete S.
C&W Dept.,
GWS Didcot.

 

Looks bright in sunlight, but see it without sun and it's darker - just what happens with paint innit? Peter Townend was very happy on 25th February.

 

Comparisons of 21st century digital photos with 1950s/1960s photos (especially reproduced in books and magazines) is especially egregious as camera, film, printing, software, etc. all affect the colours.
I have sometimes looked at two photos of my own taken seconds apart as the light changed (moved into/out of shadow) or at different angles (to the sun, or with curved surfaces) and it looks like quite different colours.
Ron Jarvis (I think that was his name - of Bulleid rebuild fame) took some comparison photos in the 1940s and later of the exact same image, but two different films/cameras (simultaneously or immediately one after the other) and the colour differences were very dramatic.
Some people will never be happy with liveries anyway, and think only their judgement on this highly subjective subject is infallible.

 

With the oil and white spirit mix what percentage of paint do you had to the mix.I spoke with Williamsons technical people who said they had never heard of this and just recommended there thinners.

 

I bet it's the wrong shade of Robson Green too.

 

You have hit the nail on the head there, back in the days of film the only variable was the film, the most popular being Kodak or Agfa and later Fuji. Kodak was probably the best at reproducing the correct shade of colour but not in poor light. With digital there are two variables, the camera sensor and the way the image is processed which means the final interpretation of colour and exposure is down to the photographer and you could have two pictures from the same image looking entirely different.

 

I found this intriguing as I always considered this as a Class 7 (designated 7P6F by BR methinks) so does this suggest (a) the loco has been re-engineered or (b) someone has the wrong power classification as methinks the number should have been 98(steam loco) 7 (power class) 72 (last 2 digits). There again, given that its current number is 60103 should it not have been 98703; is it my age or am I just being pedantic ?

 

The main problem is that the HUMAN eye sees colour in different shades; I had a friend whose family genetics include seeing shades of green as shades of grey !! Now to him any shade of grey (workshops grey ?) would be perfectly acceptable - so any argument about the "correct shade of green" really boils down to the personal perspective and accepting that there will never be agreement about "the right shade".

 

Just got out my combined volume reprint. Tornado is class 8 with a 250psi boiler. FS has same cylinders but only 220psi and te is circa 5000lb lower.

Did someone just transpose Tornados data, after all all LNER pacifics look the same

 

It probably goes back to when Flying Scotsman had the 250lb A4 boiler fitted, frankly, and was re-registered under TOPs to run on the mainline. She was technically an 8P under Marchington, most certainly, with the boiler pressed and the cylinders bored out for a higher tractive effort.

Otherwise she should, as correctly pointed out by Fred, be either 98772 or 98703 (if we take the latter number) as her power classification is now 7P once more as an A3.

However the last two digits under TOPs were the ones originally chosen for Scotsman when registered and this is not transferable (as far as I am aware?) as they are the unique identifiers. So "72" she will remain in that sense.

 

This is true. Many, many years ago an 8F number 8233 was registered under the TOPS system as 98833, although it has since been renumbered 48773. The problem arose when a certain pacific was to be registered and had to move up one number - to 98834.

 

Trying to photograph moving trains with Kodak's 25ASA was a joke!

 

That's why I didn't try, in the old days I went for Agfa CT18 to my regret. They have not stood the test of time, although PS can pull back the colour, I'm still left with the grain. I'm steadily scanning and restoring my slides and at current rate the job will be finished by the time I'm about 160 years old!

 

So you can't tell an A4 from an A1/2/3? Specsavers for you old chap.

 

Try telling that to Keith Pirt. He produced some superb images of moving trains on Kodachrome 8ASA let alone the 25ASA version.
At 25ASA in full sun you could use 1/500 at f2.8 so no problem at all with moving objects, certainly up to 50mph.

 

Keith wasn't the only one but those were the days when you could choose your outings on the weather forecast.

 

Agreed. I know there were others out there but Keith is always the one who springs first to mind. Possibly because I have a nice shot of his of 34081.

 

Is it me, or perhaps the high gloss finish, but the orange and black lining out almost invisible and adds very little to the finish ( in comparison to say 71000)