Flying Scotsman

When stood next to the engine on a number of occasions on the 25th, I didn't find that to be the case in good light. The whole locomotive looks very dark in poor sunlight and bright in decent light, the lining out and its fineness accentuated in bright light I feel.

She is a thing of immense beauty. Heritage Painting did a fine job finishing off the locomotive after Ian Riley's superb mechanical overhaul on her.

And for the record - I love her original LNER whistle, as I know it's what she would have had in LNER and BR days. It's a sound which suits her and brings back memories of watching all of the archive footage of her in the 60s and 70s.

 

Welcome to the Club....

 

Ah the good old default argument/discussion of paint..........

I see debating over the correct shade of paint being truly pointless unless there is serious doubt in the shade, something akin to shades on a Dulux paint chart.

I say this as once you have factored in the newness of the paint, weathering, available light viewed in, biological human eye wear & tear, original reference material, film/print/digital images you can't possible have two realistic points of reference to compare so therefore how can you ever agree what's right or wrong.

I suggest you see the loco in the flesh, forget anything in print & judge for yourself.

You can't seriously think Heritage Painting don't do their research to endeavour to get a 'proper job' done...................?

 

I've never measured it so can't give you a nominal percentage value. It varies depending on the weather – a little more on hot days & not so much if it's temperate going on cold. The idea is to achieve a consistency that spreads well from the brush but still has time to 'flow' out so that the brush marks are minimised, but not so much that it keeps flowing & makes a horrible saggy mess. Initial judgement is made by looking at how the paint flows off a stirring stick with further adjustment as required when actually applying the stuff.

I prefer paraffin+oil as the 'ffin has a much slower rate of evaporation to turps so keeps a 'wet edge' open for longer; most useful when confronted with the large panels on tin Colletts, Hawksworths & 4000 gallon tenders.

TRW will recommend their special thinners, it's only to be expected - mainly for guarantee purposes but also for increased sales. The guys that painted 4144 had some of that & it smelled... interesting; definitely not turps, but with a hint of some heavy oil-derived solvent - possibly benzene. The MSDS ought to reveal more info on its composition.

Pete.

 

We use Williamson thinners and they certainly have a distinctive smell! Will have a look at the label next time, although if we thin paints (most of us don't tend to bother usually) we use owatrol usually. More often though we use Williamson paint straight from the tin, although with only Mk1s and all with waist lining breaking things up there's less need to maintain a wet edge for as long.

 

Very unlikely to be be benzene, which is a known carcinogen and the use of which is very strictly controlled these days. May have been toluene (a benzene derivative) which has similar properties but is not a known carcinogen (but that is not the same as saying definitely not carcinogenic). The two have quite distinct smells, but you would have to know them to distinguish (as in - I wouldn't like to try to give a description, except that benzene is somewhat yeasty and toluene is more aromatic).

Very strong disclaimer: always read the hazard labels and take appropriate precautions to avoid exposure!

Tom

 

My MChem supervisor would have something to say about that. In chemistry, Benzene is being replaced with Toluene, if not other less harmful solvents.

 

Never handled benzene, nor would I like too. I used toluene most days in my MChem (the reaction I was exploring worked best in it), though I too would struggle to describe it.
Reading old journals, you wonder how people survived when the solvent mixture for flash column was benzene and CCl4

 

Scotsman fans might like to buy the new issue (No.213) of Heritage Railway which is a special issue and comes with a very good double sided poster (it's out in the shops tomorrow).

 

Not something I used often, though per-deutero benzene was a common NMR solvent because it had only a single peak to get in the way of your compound. Per-deutero toluene had its own irritating signal about where you would be looking for your own, so was generally avoided except for low temperature work! Benzene itself was one of very few solvents that would force me into a fume hood; I shudder to think now about just how much we did on the open bench. My main ligand for my DPhil was unsymmetrical di-methyl hydrazine, another carcinogen. I suspect if I re-did my thesis now, I would never be out of the fume hood.

On the plus side - I've never smoked!

Tom

 

Everything in my MChem was done in the fumehood, my supervisor made us put it in the risk assessment we had to sign. The PhD student I was doing my MChem with was using a lot of stannanes and DMF so I was very thankful for a fumehood.
Undergrad labs were a little different but now there's new labs with enough fumehoods for everyone to access to one (sharing with one other) rather than only a few as it was for my year, so less if anything on the open bench top now.

And neither have I!

 

When you lot have finished........ could we please get back to the subject of this thread, or is that too much to ask?.....

Maybe its best if you take your discussion down the pub, sorry new MIC thread?...........

Mods?.....

 

I don't know what 4472/60103 actually sounded like in those days, but my understanding is that A3s carried the standard LNER whistle. Mayflower has a much clearer and more piercing tone and the drivers seem to really like making it wail and crow; 62005 and 61994 don't sound bad either. Flying Scotsman's current whistle is definitely a poor relation, even if it is original.

Rest of the job looks and sounds fantastic though.

 

Agree. And from the recent BBC documentary SAC should compare how the whistle sounded in 1968 (footage of it at Kings X at the start of the programme) with how it sounds now. Certainly sounds like no other LNER loco in preservation and not like anything on various DVD's I have.

 

Ditto, a really good watch, mind you with the internet speed of a striking slug where I am it was a 38 minute documentary

 

According to the chap on the sales counter, Wiiliamson's special thinners is nothing more than traditional white spirit. Most white spirits that you get from B&Q, etc are now low odour or even odourless but not the Williamson stuff!

 

You've got to be kidding? There's clearly something wrong with it at the moment, it sounds ridiculous.

Simon

 

When you watch the program on Scotsman it takes about 2 minutes to paint it and doe's not give any insight into the effort required to paint a loco.You don't go to B&Q for the paint and brushes and what Pete was explaining was some of the secrets of brush painting which makes a change from people saying it is the wrong shade or the lining isn't right,

Yes may be a slight thread drift but this is NP (national paint)

 

True story: Shell Mex House in London used to be nicknamed 'Big Benzene'.

 

IMO the current whistle sounds quite different to how it sounded in all the times I've seen/travelled behind her since 1964. Question is though, which is the correct sound, the current one or the previous one?
Is 60163's high pitched whistle a standard LNER one and were those fitted to the A1s the same as the A3's whistle? Whatever the answer 60163 sounds different to 60103.